YATISH SAXENA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/5631/2026HC DelhiDLHC01017671202621 August 2026Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court held that while the respondent might have been justified in disallowing the TDS amount if the deductor (Kingfisher Airlines) had not deposited it, the petitioner cannot be blamed for the deductor's default and should not be deprived of his legitimate right to claim credit for the TDS. This principle was affirmed by this Court in its judgment in Satwant Singh Sanghera (supra). Consequently, the impugned demands for AYs 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 were quashed and set aside to the extent they related to the non-grant of credit for TDS deducted by Kingfisher Airlines. The order clarified that it applies only to the amounts deducted by Kingfisher Airlines and would not affect any other demands raised by the Assessing Officer. The petition and pending applications were disposed of.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Yatish Saxena, is challenging demands raised by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax for Assessment Years (AY) 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13. These demands, totaling Rs. 4,52,188/-, Rs. 2,04,369/-, Rs. 49,48,730/-, and Rs. 26,29,922/- respectively, including interest, were raised via intimations under Sections 143(1) and 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core issue is the non-credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) amounting to Rs. 1,08,367/-, Rs. 10,88,879/-, Rs. 13,57,302/-, and Rs. 7,14,967/- for the respective AYs, which was deducted by Kingfisher Airlines from the petitioner's salary but allegedly not deposited by the deductor.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the petitioner can be denied credit for TDS deducted by his employer, Kingfisher Airlines, when the deductor failed to deposit the same, and if such denial is justified under the Income Tax Act, 1961. (Question of law and mixed fact and law, turning on the provisions related to TDS credit and the liability of the assessee when the deductor defaults). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue is squarely covered by this Court's judgment in W.P.(C) 13765/2024, Satwant Singh Sanghera v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., dated 01.10.2024. Revenue's Contention: The learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent was not in a position to dispute the legal position as stated by the petitioner's counsel.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010176712026 + W.P.(C) 5631/2026, CM APPL. 27599/2026 & CM APPL. 34832/2026 YATISH SAXENA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Paras Jindal, Advocate for Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate through VC. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with Mr. Anant Mann and Mr. Pratyaksh Gupta, JSCs for IT Dept. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA

O R D E R % 21.08.2026

1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for the Assessment Years 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 demands of Rs. 4,52,188/- (Ref No. 2010200910040512521T), Rs. 2,04,369/- (Ref No. 20172010101599218801), Rs. 49,48,730/- (Ref No. 2016201137049076722T) and Rs. 26,29,922/- (Ref No. 2013201237013914932T) including interest have been raised by way of intimations under Sections 143(1) and 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961’) against the petitioner because the credit of TDS which Kingfisher Airlines (erstwhile employer) had deducted from the salary of the petitioner amounting to Rs. 1,08,367/- for AY 2009-10, Rs. 10,88,879/- for AY 2010-11, Rs. 13,57,302/- for AY 2011-12, and Rs. 7,14,967/-for AY 2012-13 was not given.

2.

It is contended that the issue involved in the present writ petition is This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2026 at 10:46:38

squarely covered by a judgment dated 01.10.2024 of this Court rendered in W.P.(C) 13765/2024 Satwant Singh Sanghera v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

3.

Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent, was not in a position to dispute the legal position of law as stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

4.

Heard learned Counsel for the Parties.

5.

Adverting to the merits of the case, we are of the view that the Respondent could perhaps have been justified in disallowing the amount of TDS which was collected by Kingfisher Airlines from the Petitioner's salary, as the same was not deposited by said deductor but the Petitioner cannot be blamed for that and deprived of his legitimate right, as has been held by this Court in its judgement Satwant Singh Sanghera (supra).

6.

We therefore allow the writ petition and quash and set aside the impugned demands for the AY's 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 to the extent they relate to the non-grant of credit of Tax Deducted at Source by the Kingfisher Airlines.

7.

Needless to observe that our order shall confine to the amounts which have been deducted by the Kingfisher Airlines and in case there is any other demand raised by the Assessing Officer, the same shall not be effected.

8.

The instant petition, alongwith pending applications, stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. DINESH MEHTA, J. RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. AUGUST 21, 2026/MR This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/08/2026 at 10:46:38

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →