AVNI DOGRA 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 (revenue) might have been justified in disallowing the TDS amount if it was not deposited by the deductor, the petitioner (assessee) cannot be blamed for the deductor's failure and should not be deprived of her legitimate right to the credit of TDS. The Court relied on its previous judgment in Satwant Singh Sanghera (supra) for this reasoning. Consequently, the intimation dated February 15, 2013, for Assessment Year 2011-12 was quashed and set aside to the extent it related to the non-grant of credit for TDS deducted by Kingfisher Airlines. The Court clarified that its order was confined to the TDS amounts deducted by Kingfisher Airlines and would not affect any other demands raised by the Assessing Officer. The petition was disposed of in these terms.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Avni Dogra, is challenging an intimation dated February 15, 2013, issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This intimation raised a demand for Assessment Year 2011-12 due to the non-grant of credit for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) amounting to Rs. 14,65,787/-. This TDS was deducted by Kingfisher Airlines, the petitioner's erstwhile employer, from her salary. The petitioner contends that the issue is covered by a previous judgment of the Delhi High Court in a similar case. The revenue's counsel was unable to dispute the facts and law presented by the petitioner.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner can be denied credit for TDS deducted by her employer, Kingfisher Airlines, for Assessment Year 2011-12, even if the deductor failed to deposit the same? (Question of law and fact, concerning the interpretation and application of provisions related to TDS credit). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the issue is squarely covered by the Delhi High Court's judgment in W.P.(C) 13765/2024, Satwant Singh Sanghera v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7163. The petitioner contended that she should not be deprived of her legitimate right to TDS credit due to the failure of the deductor (Kingfisher Airlines) to deposit the deducted amount. Revenue's Contention: The revenue's counsel was not in a position to dispute the position of facts and law as stated by the petitioner's counsel.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
O R D E R % 16.09.2026
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for the Assessment Year 2011- 12 demand with Reference No. 2012201110020608113T has been raised by way of intimation dated 15.02.2013 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 amounting to Rs. 14,65,787/- for AY 2011-12 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 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 18/09/2026 at 11:34:18
Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine Del 7163. 3. Mr. Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondent, was not in a position to dispute the position of facts and law as stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner.
Heard learned Counsel for the Parties.
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).
We therefore allow the writ petition and quash and set aside the intimation dated 15.02.2013 for AY 2011-12 to the extent it relates to the non-grant of credit of Tax Deducted at Source by the Kingfisher Airlines.
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, along with pending applications, stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. DINESH MEHTA, J. RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. SEPTEMBER 16, 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 18/09/2026 at 11:34:18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Prashanti Das (M/S. Panchamukhi Enterprises) vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Jagatsinghpur CircleOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
