SHARP ENGINEERS THROUGH PARTNER, BABUBHAI J PATEL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS-3

By   this  writ   application   under   Article   226   of the   Constitution   of   India,   the   writ   applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: “a. A   writ   of   certiorari   or   any   other   writ, order   or   direction   in   the   nature   of   Certiorari quashing   the   impugned   recovery   notices   dated 04.06.2018 and 24.12.2018 for the assessment year 2009­10   and   directing   the   respondent   to   delete demand of Rs.2,34,020/­ raised on account of short payment of TDS; b.   Pass   any   other   order(s)   as   this   Hon'ble   May deem fit and more appropriate in order to grant interim relief to the petitioner. “

We have heard Mr. Hardik V. Vora, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant and Mr. M.M.Bhatt,   the  learned   Senior   Counsel  assisted by Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt, the learned Sr. Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue.

The   controversy   involved   in   the   present litigation   is   in   a   narrow   compass.   The   writ C/SCA/4772/2019 ORDER applicant being a Partnership Firm had deducted the   TDS   under   the   various   provisions   of   the Income   Tax   Act,   1961   (for   short   “The   Act, 1961”).   The   assessee   had   also   filed   the   TDS return   in   physical   form   for   the   F.Y.   2008­09 relevant   to  the   A.Y.   2009­10  after   paying  due taxes.

It is the case of the writ applicant that, in spite of the fact that, the writ applicant has not   received   any   order   under   Sections 201(1)/201(1A)   of   the   Act,   1961,   the   recovery notices are still being issued by the Assessing Officer for the recovery of the short payment.

In response to various recovery notices by the Assessing   Officer,   the   writ   applicant   vide letter   dated   26.12.2018   has   furnished   all   the necessary  information   to  the   Assessing   Officer requesting   him   to   grant   the   credit   of   TDS deposited and cancel the demand raised. However, the   respondent   authority   is   neither   giving credit   nor   stating   any   reason   for   not   giving credit and issuing notices for recovery.

In   such   circumstances   referred   to   above,   the writ   applicant   is  here   before  this   Court   with the present writ application.

Mr. Bhatt, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Revenue invited the attention of this Court to   the   letter   addressed   by   the   Income   Tax C/SCA/4772/2019 ORDER Officer,   TDS­3,  Ahmedabad,   dated   20.03.2019   to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Ghaziabad, Uttar  Pradesh,   making  a  request   to  reduce  the demand   on  the  TRACES.   According   to  Mr.   Bhatt, the   matter   is   pending   at   the   end   of   the Commissioner   of   Income   Tax   (CPC),   Ghaziabad, Uttar   Pradesh.   The   letter   is   at   page   No.22 (Annexure­R­1) to the writ application.

In the aforesaid context, Mr. Bhatt also invited the   attention   of   this   Court   to   the   averments made   in   Paragraph   No.3.5   of   the   affidavit­in­ reply filed on behalf of the Revenue. Paragraph No.3.5 of the Affidavit­in­Reply reads thus: “3.5 With reference to para 4.1 to 5.1, it is submitted that this is general submission and prayer of the petitioner and therefore, the same   requires   to   be   looked   into   in   the context of the above discussion and matter of facts. The outstanding demand in subject is under verification and correction/deletion of demand   is   under   process   and   the   petitioner has not been pressed to pay the said demand, therefore,   the   petition   filed   by   the petitioner   is   pre­mature   ,   not   correct   and requires to be quashed.”

Thus, it appears from the above that, although the stance of the respondent herein is that the outstanding   demand   in   subject   is   under   the verification and the correction/deletion of the outstanding demand is under the process at the level of CPC, Ghaziabad (U.P). The Commissioner of   Income   Tax   (CPC),   Ghaziabad   (U.P)   is   not before   us   as   one   of   the   party   respondents. However,   as   the   controversy   is   in   narrow C/SCA/4772/2019 ORDER compass,   we   dispose   of   this   writ   application with a request to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Ghaziabad (U.P) to effect the necessary correction/deletion   of   the   outstanding   demand shown online within a period of four weeks from the   date   of   receipt   of   this   order.   Registry shall   forward   one   copy   of   this   order   to   the Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Aaykar Bhavan, Sector­3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh.

With the above, present writ application stands disposed of. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (ILESH J. VORA,J) SUCHIT