BALJINDER CHATHA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS.
What did the High Court hold?
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court held that while the respondent department might have been justified in disallowing TDS if the deductor had not deposited it, the petitioner cannot be blamed or deprived of their legitimate right to credit. This principle was affirmed by the Court's prior judgment in *Satwant Singh Sanghera (supra)*. Consequently, the intimations dated 09.04.2011, 04.03.2013, and 27.02.2014 for AYs 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 were quashed and set aside to the extent they related to the non-grant of TDS credit from Kingfisher Airlines. The consequential demands and recoveries made from the petitioner's refunds were declared illegal. The Department was directed to process the refund and TDS credit for AY 2010-11 within two weeks and refund the amount recovered from the petitioner, along with applicable interest under Sections 244(1) and 244(1)(A) of the Act of 1961, within three months. The order's scope was confined to TDS deducted by Kingfisher Airlines.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Baljinder Chatha, challenged intimations issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Years (AY) 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012-13. These intimations raised demands totaling Rs. 6,91,980, Rs. 9,58,020, and Rs. 17,51,470 respectively, including interest. The core of the dispute was the non-grant of credit for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) amounting to Rs. 6,71,951 (AY 2010-11), Rs. 7,36,042 (AY 2011-12), and Rs. 13,82,396 (AY 2012-13), which was deducted by the petitioner's erstwhile employer, Kingfisher Airlines. The petitioner also highlighted the recovery of Rs. 6,504, Rs. 10,170, and Rs. 420 from refunds due for AYs 2017-18, 2020-21, and 2025-26, adjusted against the disputed demands.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the intimations dated 09.04.2011, 04.03.2013, and 27.02.2014 under Section 143(1) of the Act of 1961, to the extent they did not grant credit for TDS deducted by Kingfisher Airlines, are liable to be quashed and set aside? (Question of law and fact, turning on Section 143(1) and principles of TDS credit). Assessee's contentions: The petitioner argued that the issue is squarely covered by the Delhi High Court's judgment in *Satwant Singh Sanghera v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.* (W.P.(C) 13765/2024). The petitioner further contended that the intimations and consequential demands are liable to be set aside, and the amounts recovered from refunds should be refunded with interest. Revenue's contentions: The respondent submitted that a stay order dated 24.04.2026 had been passed, staying the recovery of demands. They also stated that Kingfisher Airlines had deposited the TDS for AY 2010-11, as reflected in Form 26AS, and the department was in the process of issuing refunds and granting TDS credit for AY 2010-11.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(1),Section 244(1),Section 244(1)(A)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 21.08.2026
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for the Assessment Years 2010- 11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 demands of Rs. 6,91,980 - Ref No. 20112010100009903451), Rs. 9,58,020/ - (Ref No. 2012201110022268620T), Rs. 17,51,470/- (Ref No. 2013201237055566866T) including interest have been raised by way of intimations dated 09.04.2011, 04.03.2013, and 27.02.2014 under Sections 143(1) 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 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 24/08/2026 at 10:55:50
amounting to Rs. 6,71,951/- for AY 2010-11, Rs. 7,36,042/- for AY 2011-12, and Rs. 13,82,396/- for AY 2012-13 was not given.
It is contended that the issue involved in the present writ petition is 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.
The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further asserted that the Respondent has recovered the amounts of Rs. 6,504/-, Rs. 10,170/- and Rs. 420/- arising from refunds which were due to Petitioner for AYs 2017-18, 2020-21 & 2025-26 respectively, by adjusting the said refund amounts against the aforesaid demand raised for AY 2010-11. Learned Counsel submitted that in the facts of the present case, not only the intimations/orders that has been passed under Section 143(1) dated 09.04.2011, 04.03.2013, and 27.02.2014 of the Act of 1961 are liable to be set aside, but the Petitioner is also entitled to the refund of the amount which stands recovered from the Petitioner.
Ms. Benjamin, Junior Standing Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Respondent Department has already passed a stay order dated 24.04.2026 thereby staying the recovery of demands from the Petitioner, of Rs. 6,41,595/- for AY 2010-11, Rs. 9,58,020/- for AY 2011-12 and Rs. 17,51,470/- for AY 2012-13. Furthermore, she submitted that the deductor Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. had also deposited TDS deducted for AY 2010-11 as reflected in Form 26AS. Accordingly, the Department is in the process of issuing the refund for AY 2010-11 and the consequential grant of TDS credit for the same.
Heard learned Counsel for the Parties.
Adverting to the merits of the case, we are of the view that the 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 24/08/2026 at 10:55:50
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).
We therefore allow the writ petition and quash and set aside the intimations dated 09.04.2011, 04.03.2013, and 27.02.2014 for AY's 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012- 13, respectively, to the extent they relate to the non-grant of credit of Tax Deducted at Source by the Kingfisher Airlines. The consequential demand and the recovery made from Petitioner's refund is also declared illegal. Furthermore, the Department is directed to process refund and TDS credit for AY 2010-11 within 2 weeks. The Respondent is directed to refund the amount recovered from the Petitioner along with applicable interest under Section 244(1) and 244(1)(A) of the Act of 1961, within a period of three months from today. It shall be required of the Respondent to ensure that the applicable amount is paid to the Petitioner.
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.
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 24/08/2026 at 10:55:50
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Laxman Singh Yadav vs. Bank Of BarodaMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Surendra Singh Rathore vs. Idfc First Bank Through Branch ManagerMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026
