PRIYANK AGRAWAL S/O LT. SHRI GOPAL AGRAWAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CW/16282/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02085609202418 November 2024Author: AVNEESH JHINGAN,ASHUTOSH KUMAR3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

Facts

The petitioner, Priyank Agrawal, filed a writ petition challenging tax demands for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12 and 2012-13, arising from the non-deposit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) by his former employer, Kingfisher Airlines. The demands amounted to Rs.16,94,330/- for AY 2011-12 and Rs.18,33,150/- for AY 2012-13. The petitioner was also served a notice under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, proposing to adjust refunds against these outstanding demands. The petitioner's grievance was considered and the case was closed on April 24, 2024.

Held

The High Court held that for the demand created against the petitioner for non-deposit of TDS by the employer, the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal. The Court noted that there were no pleadings indicating that the demands for AY 2011-12 and 2012-13 had been challenged or that such proceedings were pending. Regarding the notice under Section 245 of the Act, the Court stated that the petitioner must respond to the notice, and the respondent authority will proceed in accordance with law after considering the reply. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the subsequent order, they will have a statutory remedy. Consequently, the Court found no reason to interfere in its writ jurisdiction. The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedies in accordance with law against the demands and to file a response to the Section 245 notice within two weeks.

Key Issues

1. Whether the demand for TDS, where TDS was deducted by the employer but not deposited, amounts to double taxation and should not be adjusted against the petitioner's refund under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (Question of law and fact) Assessee's Contentions: - The employer had deducted the TDS, and the petitioner is entitled to credit for this deducted amount. - The demand for TDS constitutes double taxation. - No adjustment under Section 245 of the Act should be made. Revenue's Contentions: - The challenge in the petition is to a show-cause notice.

Sections Cited

Section 245

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
[2024:RJ-JP:47183-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16282/2024 Priyank Agrawal S/o Lt. Shri Gopal Agrawal, R/o - Plot No. 165- B, Vidhyut Nagar- B, Ajmer Road, Jaipur Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ITO Ward No. 2(1), Jaipur Rajasthan. 2. Central Processing Unit, Income Tax Department, 1st Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 48/1, 48/2, Beratenaagrahara Begur, Hosur Rd, Uttarahalli, Hobli, Bengaluru, Karnataka- 560100 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajatshatru Mina, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

Order 18/11/2024 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J [ORAL]:-

1.

This petition is filed seeking quashing of tax demand for Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13 on account of non deposit of Tax Deducted at Source (for short ‘TDS’) by the employer. Further prayer is to quash the notice issued under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act of 1961’).

2.

The brief facts are that the petitioner was employed with Kingfisher Airlines. For Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13, the employer deducted TDS but d

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →