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

PDF · subscribers
W.P.(C)/2490/2025HC DelhiDLHC01009876202527 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 allowed the writ petition. The Court held that the demands for AYs 2009-10 and 2012-13, raised as per the notice dated January 21, 2022, were quashed. The Court found that the Revenue was not entitled in law to adjust the demands raised for AYs 2009-10 and 2012-13 against any other AY. Consequently, the Revenue was restrained from adjusting any refund due to the petitioner against any demand reflected for AYs 2009-10 and 2012-13. The Court further directed the refund of Rs. 60,660/- for AY 2021-22 and Rs. 1,28,190/- for AY 2022-23 to the petitioner, as these amounts had been adjusted. The reasoning was based on the concession made by the Revenue, acknowledging that the issue was covered by the High Court's earlier decision in Sanjay Sudan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Raj Kumar, filed a writ petition before the Delhi High Court challenging a notice dated January 21, 2022, and a demand of Rs. 35,77,640/-. The petitioner also challenged demand references for Assessment Years (AY) 2009-10 and 2012-13, alleging they were illegal and contrary to the Income Tax Act. The petition further sought to quash the adjustment of refunds for AY 2021-22 against the demand for AY 2009-10, and the refund for AY 2022-23 against the demand for AY 2012-13. The petitioner contended that the demands arose due to defaults by his employer, Kingfisher Airlines Limited, which failed to deposit deducted tax. The petitioner sought a direction to issue refunds for AY 2021-22 and AY 2022-23 along with interest, and to restrain the Revenue from adjusting future refunds against these old demands.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the notice dated January 21, 2022, and the demand of Rs. 35,77,640/- for AYs 2009-10 and 2012-13 are illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the adjustment of refunds for AY 2021-22 and AY 2022-23 against the demands for AY 2009-10 and AY 2012-13, respectively, is illegal and bad in law? Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the demands for AYs 2009-10 and 2012-13 were due to the employer's failure to deposit deducted tax. The petitioner sought quashing of these demands and the consequent adjustments of refunds. The petitioner relied on the decision in Sanjay Sudan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Another ([2023] 148 taxmann.com 329 (Delhi)). Revenue's Contentions: The learned counsel for the Revenue fairly submitted that the prayers made by the petitioner be allowed, as the issue was covered by the aforementioned decision of the Delhi High Court.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~78 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 2490/2025 & CM APPL. 11773/2025

RAJ KUMAR

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

versus

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

.....Respondents

Through:

CORAM:

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA

O R D E R %

27.02.2025 CM APPL. 11774/2025 1. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 2490/2025 & CM APPL. 11773/2025 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 21.01.2022 (Annexure P-21) and the impugned demand of Rs. 35,77,640/- being illegal and contrary to the provisions of the Act;

(ii) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing demand reference 2015201237053943551T in AY 2009-10 and 2010200910040149184T in AY 2012-13 (Annexure P-11) 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 Petitioner in accordance with the law;

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

(iii) Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing following adjustment of refunds due to the Petitioner, being illegal, and bad in law: a) adjustment of refund of AY 2021-22 against the demand of AY 2009-10 informed to the Petitioner vide intimation dated 29.10.2021 (Annexure P- 15), b) adjustment of refund of AY 2022-23 against the demand of AY 2012-13 informed to the Petitioner vide intimation dated 22.07.2022 (Annexure P-23);

(iv) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus to direct Respondents to issue refund of Rs. 60,660/- arising out of AY 2021-22 and Rs. 1,28,190/- arising out of AY 2022-23 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 2012-13;

(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;

(vii) Award the costs of the present writ petition to the Petitioner.”

4.

It is the petitioner’s case that demands in respect of AY’s 2009-10 and 2012-13 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 2009-10 and 2012-13 raised as per notice dated 21.01.2022 are quashed. Respondents/Revenue are not entitled in law to adjust the demand 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

raised for AY’s 2009-10 and 2012-13 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’s 2009-10 and 2012-13. 8. The petitioner has adverted to the fact that an amount of Rs. 60,660/- for AY 2021-22 and Rs. 1,28,190/- for AY 2022-23 is liable to be refunded because of adjustment of demands. 9. As the amounts of Rs.60,660/- for AY 2021-22 and Rs.1,28,190/- for AY 2022-23 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 21:26:13

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →