VIKRAM KAPOOR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX & ANR.

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/2488/2025HC DelhiDLHC01009874202527 February 2025Bench: HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court quashed the demands for AY 2008-09, 2012-13, and 2013-14, as raised by the notice dated January 20, 2022. The Court held that the Revenue was not entitled in law to adjust these demands against any other AY. Consequently, the Revenue was restrained from adjusting any refund due to the petitioner against the demands for AYs 2008-09, 2012-13, and 2013-14. The decision was based on the concession made by the Revenue, which agreed that the issue was covered by the High Court's earlier judgment in Sanjay Sudhan v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The Court did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Vikram Kapoor, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice dated January 20, 2022, and certain demand references for Assessment Years (AY) 2008-09, 2012-13, and 2013-14. The petitioner contended that these demands arose due to the employer's (Kingfisher Airlines Limited) failure to deposit tax deducted at source, despite the tax being deducted from the petitioner's income. The petitioner sought to quash these demands and prevent the Revenue from adjusting any refunds due to him against these specific demands. The Revenue appeared before the Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated January 20, 2022, and the demands for AY 2008-09, 2012-13, and 2013-14, created due to the employer's failure to deposit TDS, are illegal and contrary to the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the Revenue is legally entitled to adjust any refund due to the petitioner against the aforementioned demands. The petitioner argued that the demands were illegal and contrary to the Act, as they stemmed from the employer's default in depositing TDS, not from any default by the petitioner. The petitioner relied on the principle that the employee should not be penalized for the employer's failure to deposit deducted tax. The Revenue, through its counsel, fairly submitted that the prayers made by the petitioner should be allowed, acknowledging that the issue was covered by a previous decision of the Delhi High Court in Sanjay Sudan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~76

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2488/2025 & CM APPL. 11769/2025

VIKRAM KAPOOR

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

versus

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX & ANR. .....Respondent

Through: Appearance not given.

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

27.02.2025

CM APPL. 11770/2025

1.

Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 2488/2025 & CM APPL. 11769/2025 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 20.01.2022 (Annexure P-15) being illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act;

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing demand reference 2010200851077220480T in AY 2008-09, 2013201237055578592T in AY 2012-13 and 2014201337019042625T in AY 2013-14 (Annexure P-6) created by the Respondents being illegal and contrary to the provisions of 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 21:26:13

Act and consequentially give effect to the Income Tax Returns of the respective Assessment Years filed by the Petitioner in accordance with the law; (iii) 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 2008-09, AY 2012-13 and 2013- 14; (iv) 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’s 2008-09, 2012-13 and 2013-14 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 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’s 2008-09, 2012-13 and 2013-14 raised as per notice dated 20.01.2022 are quashed. Respondents/Revenue are not entitled in law to adjust the demand raised for AY’s 2008-09, 2012-13 and 2013-14 against any other AY. It is ordered accordingly. 7. In view of the above, the present petition is allowed and the Revenue 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 21:26:13

is restrained from adjusting any refund due to the petitioner against any demand reflected for the AY’s 2008-09, 2012-13 and 2013-14. 8. 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 21:26:13

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →