DHIRAJ KUMAR SINGH vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.

PDF · subscribers

W.P.(C)/17845/2024HC DelhiDLHC01097672202423 December 2024Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA,HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE2 pages

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court held that the question of whether any further demand could be recovered from the petitioner for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 was concededly covered by the judgment of a co-ordinate bench in Sanjay Sudan vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. (Neutral Citation No. 2023:148:DHC:001342) dated February 17, 2023. Consequently, the impugned notices dated September 12, 2013, and October 8, 2018, raising the demand for these assessment years, were set aside. The petitioner was granted liberty to seek a refund of any amount that may have been adjusted against these demands by adjusting any refund due for other assessment years. The petition was allowed in these terms.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Dhiraj Kumar Singh, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging notices dated September 12, 2013, and October 8, 2018, which raised a demand for assessment years (AY) 2011-12 and 2012-13. This demand pertained to tax deducted at source by the petitioner's employer, Kingfisher Airlines. The core of the dispute revolved around whether any further demand could be recovered from the petitioner in these circumstances. The Revenue, represented by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, accepted notice of the petition. The High Court noted that the issue was covered by a previous judgment of a co-ordinate bench.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, in the given circumstances, any further demand can be recovered from the petitioner for assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13, concerning tax deducted at source by his employer. The Assessee's contention: The petitioner implicitly argued that the demand was not sustainable, as the issue was covered by a co-ordinate bench's judgment. The specific arguments made by the petitioner are not detailed in the judgment, beyond the prayer for relief. The Revenue's contention: The Revenue accepted notice of the petition, and their specific arguments are not recorded in the judgment. However, their acceptance of notice and the subsequent order suggest they did not contest the petitioner's reliance on the precedent.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~79 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 17845/2024

DHIRAJ KUMAR SINGH

.....Petitioner

Through: Mr. Archit Arora, Advocate.

versus

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC with Mr. Anant Mann and Mr. Abhishek Anand, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

23.12.2024 CM APPL. 75924/2024 1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 17845/2024 3. Issue notice. 4. Mr. Bhatia, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue accepts notice. 5. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under: “A. Exemption from filing clearer copies / retyped or with sufficient / exact margins / handwritten at this stage.

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 20:33:17

B. Such further orders may also be passed, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

The demand against the petitioner in respect of the assessment years (AY) 2011-12 and 2012-13 relates to the tax that was deducted at source by the petitioner’s employer (Kingfisher Airlines). 7. The question whether in the circumstances any further demand can be recovered from the petitioner is concededly covered by the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this court in Sanjay Sudan vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. Neutral Citation No. 2023:148:DHC:001342 dated 17.02.2023. 8. In view of the above, the impugned notices dated 12.09.2013 and 08.10.2018 raising a demand in respect of AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13 are set aside. 9. The petitioner would be at liberty to seek a refund of amount that may have been adjusted against the demands for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 by adjusting any refund due to the petitioner in respect of any other AYs. 10. The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms.

VIBHU BAKHRU, ACJ

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J DECEMBER 23, 2024 yrj

Click here to check corrigendum, if any

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →