DHARAM PAL SHARMA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 68(5), DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/17282/2024HC DelhiDLHC01093470202407 May 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court noted that the issue was covered by earlier decisions of the Court, including Sanjay Sudan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another (2023) 452 ITR 107. The Court directed that any amount adjusted against the outstanding demand should be refunded to the petitioner. Furthermore, the concerned authorities were directed to dispose of the petitioner's applications filed under Section 154 of the Act, dated 13.12.2023 and 12.01.2024, expeditiously, and preferably within eight weeks, taking into account the present order and the decision in Sanjay Sudan. The principle established is that where TDS has been deducted by the employer, the assessee should not be prejudiced by its non-reflection in Form 26AS, and rectification mechanisms should be utilized to resolve such discrepancies.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dharam Pal Sharma, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging demands totaling Rs. 2,66,360 (including Rs. 51,070 interest) for assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13. These demands arose due to the non-reflection of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) of Rs. 2,15,290 in his Form 26AS, despite the tax being admittedly deducted by his employers. The petitioner sought directions to delete these demands and to dispose of his applications filed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking correction of the demand by providing proof of TDS deduction. The petitioner was employed with the Indian Navy and various Government of NCT of Delhi departments during the relevant period. Refunds due for subsequent assessment years had been adjusted against these outstanding demands.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the demand of Rs. 2,66,360 (including interest of Rs. 51,070) for assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13, arising from non-reflection of TDS in Form 26AS, should be deleted, considering the TDS was admittedly deducted from the petitioner's salary? (Question of law and fact, concerning Section 199 and Section 205 of the Income Tax Act, 1961). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the demand should be deleted as the TDS was deducted by the employer and the non-reflection in Form 26AS was an administrative issue. He relied on his applications filed under Section 154 seeking correction and proof of TDS deduction. Revenue's Contention: The revenue, through its counsel, accepted notice. No specific arguments or reliance on authorities were recorded for the revenue in the judgment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 199,Section 205

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~76 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17282/2024 & CM APPL. 73513/2024

DHARAM PAL SHARMA

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amit Kaushik & Mr. Himanshu Sharma, Advocates.

versus

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 68(5), DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, Jr. SC, Mr. Viplav Acharya, Jr.SC, Mr. Priya Sarkar, Jr. SC & Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

O R D E R %

07.05.2025 1. Issue notice. 2. Mr. Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue accepts notice. 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia¸ praying as under: “a) a writ of and/or order and/or direction seeks directions to the respondents to delete the demand of Rs. 2,66,360/- (including interest thereon of Rs. 51,070/-) for the assessment years 2009- 10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 due to non-reflection of TDS of Rs. 2,15,290/- in Form 26AS of the petitioner, which was admittedly deducted by the employer from the salary of the petitioner; and/or

b) a writ of and/or order and/or direction seeks directions to 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 01/07/2025 at 19:16:07

respondents to dispose the applications dated 13.12.2023 and 12.01.2024 filed by the petitioner under section 154 of Act seeking correction of the aforesaid demand whereby proof of deduction of TDS was duly submitted; and/or”

4.

The petitioner is essentially aggrieved by the outstanding demands in respect of assessment years [AYs] 2009-10, 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 for the reason that the Tax Deducted at Source [TDS] on the remuneration paid to the petitioner has not been reflected in Form 26AS of the petitioner. As a result, the refund due for subsequent assessment years has been adjusted against the outstanding demand. 5. There is no cavil that the tax demands reflected as outstanding for the relevant assessment years pertain to non-deposit of TDS, which was deducted from the remuneration payable to the petitioner by his employers. It is also material to note that, during the period in question, the petitioner was employed with the Indian Navy and thereafter with various departments under the Government of NCT of Delhi. 6. Concededly, the issue involved in the present case is covered by the earlier decisions of this Court, including Sanjay Sudan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another: (2023) 452 ITR 107, among other decisions rendered. 7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. 8. We further direct that any amount adjusted against the said outstanding demand is required to be refunded to the petitioner. 9. The concerned authorities are directed to dispose of the applications dated 13.12.2023 and 12.01.2024, filed by the petitioner under Section 154 of the Act, bearing in mind this order as well as the decision rendered by this 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 01/07/2025 at 19:16:07

Court in Sanjay Sudan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another (supra), as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of eight weeks from date.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J

TEJAS KARIA, J MAY 07, 2025/ ‘A’

Click here to check corrigendum, if any 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 01/07/2025 at 19:16:07

More judgments on Section 154

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →