RAJNEESH RAHEJA vs. ITO, WARD, 72(1), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/16839/2025HC DelhiDLHC01086831202508 December 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court treated the writ petition as a representation to the Assessing Officer (AO). The Court directed the AO to decide the representation within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the order. The decision is to be made keeping in view the instructions issued by the CBDT circular dated 21.09.2023 and the judgment in Sanjay Sudan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & ANR. Until the AO decides the representation, the impugned demand shall not be acted upon. If the order is passed in favour of the petitioner, consequential action will be taken. The petitioner is also granted liberty to seek further remedies if aggrieved by the AO's order. The Court did not decide the merits of the case but remanded it for consideration by the AO.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Rajneesh Raheja, was an employee of Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. The company deducted TDS from his salary but failed to credit it with the revenue. Consequently, a demand of Rs. 15,79,752/- was raised against the petitioner for Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13, which included interest. The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging this demand. The petition was filed in 2025.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the demand raised against the petitioner for non-deposit of TDS by the deductor (Kingfisher Airlines Ltd.) is recoverable from the petitioner, who was an employee, when the TDS was deducted from his income. The Assessee (Petitioner) argued that the demand should not be recovered from him as the TDS was deducted by his employer but not deposited with the revenue. The Assessee relied on a CBDT circular dated 21.09.2023, which, according to the Assessee, contemplates that demand cannot be recovered from the employee in such facts. The Assessee also referred to a judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sanjay Sudan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & ANR. The Revenue (Respondent) did not record any specific arguments in the judgment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~46 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 16839/2025 RAJNEESH RAHEJA

.....Petitioner Through: Ms. Rano Jain, Mr. Venketesh Chaurasia, Ms. Mansi Jain and Mr. Tanishq Ahuja, Advs. versus ITO, WARD, 72(1), DELHI

.....Respondent Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR O R D E R %

08.12.2025 1. This petition has been filed with the following prayers : “a. Issue a writ of Certiorari or writ of mandamus setting aside the total demand of Rs. 15,79,752/- for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012- 13, which includes interest also, raised on account of the non deposit of TDS by the deductor with the government from the income of the Petitioner for AY 2011- 12 & 2012-13.” 2. The case of the petitioner as urged by the learned counsel is that the petitioner was the employee of the Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. and while working so, the company Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. has deducted the TDS but has not credited with the Revenue because of which the demand has been shown against the petitioner. 3. There is no dispute that a circular in this respect dated 21.09.2023 has been issued by the CBDT which also contemplates that demand under these facts cannot be recoverable from the petitioner. Having heard counsel for 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 17/12/2025 at 13:09:40

parties, this Court is of the view, appropriate shall be that Assessing Officer shall decide the present Writ Petition as a representation of the petitioner within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and convey the decision to the petitioner. 4. The representation shall be decided keeping in view the instructions issued by the CBDT and also the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Sanjay Sudan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & ANR., NC: 2023/DHC/001342 in W.P.(C) No. 6610/2019. 5. Till such time, the AO decide the representation in terms of this order, the impugned demand shall not be acted upon. 6. If the order is passed in favour of the petitioner, follow up action shall be taken in accordance with law. It is also made clear that if the petitioner is still aggrieved by the order to be passed by the respondent/ AO, liberty shall be with the petitioner to seek such remedy as available in law. 7. The petition is disposed of. 8. The pending application also stands disposed of, as infructuous. V. KAMESWAR RAO, J VINOD KUMAR, J DECEMBER 08, 2025 ss 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 17/12/2025 at 13:09:40

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →