AKSHAY HASIJA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 70 1 DELHI & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/2472/2025HC DelhiDLHC01009858202527 February 2025Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA,HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court, in view of the submission by the Revenue and relying on its earlier decision in Sanjay Sudan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another, held that the demands for AY 2009-10 raised as per the notice dated August 16, 2023, are quashed. The Court further held that the Respondents/Revenue are not entitled in law to adjust the demand raised for AY 2009-10 against any other AY. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the Revenue was restrained from adjusting any refund due to the petitioner against any demand reflected for AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11. The Court directed the refund of specific amounts for AYs 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2022-23, and 2023-24, which had been adjusted, along with applicable interest. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Akshay Hasija, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice dated August 16, 2023, and demand references for Assessment Years (AY) 2009-10 and 2010-11. The petitioner also sought to quash the adjustment of refunds due from various AYs (2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2022-23, and 2023-24) against the demand for AY 2009-10. The petitioner's case was that the demands for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 arose due to defaults by their employer, Kingfisher Airlines Limited, which failed to deposit deducted tax. The petitioner sought the issuance of refunds for the adjusted amounts along with interest and a restraint on future adjustments against these specific AY demands.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated August 16, 2023, and demand references for AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11 are illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961, warranting quashing? (Question of law) 2. Whether the adjustment of refunds from AY 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2022-23, and 2023-24 against the demand for AY 2009-10 is illegal and bad in law? (Question of mixed law and fact) 3. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the refund of specific amounts for AYs 2013-14, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2020-21, 2022-23, and 2023-24 along with applicable interest? (Question of law) 4. Whether the Revenue should be restrained from adjusting any refund due to the petitioner against any demand reflected for AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11? (Question of law) Assessee's Contentions: The demands for AY 2009-10 and 2010-11 are due to the employer's default. The adjustments of refunds against these demands are illegal. The petitioner is entitled to the refunds and interest. The Revenue should be restrained from making future adjustments against these demands. Revenue's Contentions: The learned counsel for the Revenue fairly submitted that the prayers made by the petitioner be allowed as the issue is covered by this Court's decision in Sanjay Sudan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another ([2023] 148 taxmann.com 329 (Delhi)).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~71 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2472/2025 & CM APPL. 11659/2025

AKSHAY HASIJA

.....Petitioner Through: Mr. Nikhil Goyal and Mr. Bankim Garg, Advocates.

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 70 1 DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC with Ms. Hemlata Rawat and Mr. V.K. Saksena, JSCs.

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

27.02.2025 CM APPL. 11660/2025 1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 2472/2025 & CM APPL. 11659/2025 3. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying as under: “(i) Issuance a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 16.08.2023 (Annexure P-22) being illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act;

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing demand reference 2010200910055640400T in AY 2009-10 and 2013201010002417233T in AY 2010-11 (Annexure P-17) created by the Respondents being illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act and consequentially give effect to the Income Tax Returns of the respective Assessment Years filed by 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 21:26:14

Petitioner in accordance with the law;

(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing following adjustment of refunds due to the Petitioner against the demand of AY 2009-10, being illegal, and bad in law: a) adjustment of refund of AY 2013-14 on 20.04.2014 (Annexure P-5); b) adjustment of refund of AY 2016-17 21.04.2017 (Annexure P-8); c) adjustment of refund of AY 2017- 18 on 28.03.2019 (Annexure P-10); d) adjustment of refund of AY 2020-21 communicated to Petitioner vide communication dated 28.01.2021 (Annexure P-12), e) adjustment of refund of AY 2022-23 communicated to Petitioner vide intimation dated 21.08.2021 (Annexure P-14), f) adjustment of refund of AY 2023-24 communicated to Petitioner vide intimation dated 24.09.2023 (Annexure P-16) against the demand of AY 2009-10;

(iv) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct Respondents to issue refund of Rs. 2,320/- arising out of AY 2013-14, refund of Rs. 30/- arising out of AY 2016-17, refund of Rs. 65,860/- arising out of AY 2017-18, refund of Rs. 39,370/- arising out of AY 2020-21, refund of Rs. 18,100/- arising out of AY 2022-23 and refund of Rs. 430/- arising out of AY 2023- 24 along with applicable interest;

(v) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus to restrain the Respondents from adjusting any refund due to the Petitioner against any demand reflected for the AY's 2009-10 and AY 2010-11;

(vi) Issue of any other appropriate writ or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.”

4.

It is the petitioner’s case that demands in respect of AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11 are reflected as due from the petitioner on account of defaults committed by its employer (Kingfisher Airlines Limited). The petitioner submits that although the tax was deducted by the employer, it had failed and neglected in depositing the same at the material time. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Revenue fairly submits that the prayers made by the petitioner be allowed as the issue involved in the present petition is covered by the earlier decision of this Court in Sanjay Sudan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another reported 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 21:26:14

in [2023] 148 taxmann.com 329 (Delhi); Neutral Citation: 2023: DHC:1342. 6. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we also hold that the demands for AY 2009-10 raised as per notice dated 16.08.2023 are quashed. Respondents/Revenue are not entitled in law to adjust the demand raised for AY 2009-10 against any other AY. It is ordered accordingly. 7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the Revenue is restrained from adjusting any refund due to the petitioner against any demand reflected for the AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11. 8. The petitioner has adverted to the fact that an amount of Rs.2,320/- for AY 2013-14, Rs.30/- for AY 2016-17, Rs.65,860/- for AY 2017-18, Rs.39,370/- for AY 2020-21, Rs.18,100/- for AY 2022-23 and Rs.430/- for AY 2023-24 is liable to be refunded because of adjustment of demands. 9. As the amounts for Rs.2,320/- for AY 2013-14, Rs.30/- for AY 2016- 17, Rs.65,860/- for AY 2017-18, Rs.39,370/- for AY 2020-21, Rs.18,100/- for AY 2022-23 and Rs.430/- for AY 2023-24, irrespectively have been adjusted, the said amounts are directed to be refunded to the petitioner. 10. The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ

TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J FEBRUARY 27, 2025 yrj 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 21:26:14

More judgments on Section 154

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →