PRIYANK AGRAWAL S/O LT. SHRI GOPAL AGRAWAL V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CW/16282/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Priyank Agrawal, the petitioner, who sought to quash a tax demand for the Assessment Years 2011-12 and 2012-13 due to non-deposit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) by his employer, Kingfisher Airlines. The petitioner argued that although TDS was deducted by the employer, it was not deposited, leading to an unjust tax demand against him. Additionally, a notice under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was issued for adjusting a refund against this demand. The court heard arguments from both sides and decided that the petitioner has adequate statutory remedies available, thus dismissing the writ petition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 761624 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: SANDEEP PATHAK
• Assessee Lawyers: AJATSHATRU MINA
• Keywords: Double taxation; Non-deposit; Quashing; Tax demand; TDS
• Section: 245

Judgement Text

"[2024:RJ-JP:47183-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16282/2024 Priyank Agrawal S/o Lt. Shri Gopal Agrawal, R/o - Plot No. 165- B, Vidhyut Nagar- B, Ajmer Road, Jaipur Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ITO Ward No. 2(1), Jaipur Rajasthan. 2. Central Processing Unit, Income Tax Department, 1st Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 48/1, 48/2, Beratenaagrahara Begur, Hosur Rd, Uttarahalli, Hobli, Bengaluru, Karnataka- 560100 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajatshatru Mina, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 18/11/2024 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J [ORAL]:- 1. This petition is filed seeking quashing of tax demand for Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13 on account of non deposit of Tax Deducted at Source (for short ‘TDS’) by the employer. Further prayer is to quash the notice issued under Section 245 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act of 1961’). 2. The brief facts are that the petitioner was employed with Kingfisher Airlines. For Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13, the employer deducted TDS but did not deposit it. As per the pleadings, demand of Rs.16,94,330/- and 18,33,150/- and was created against the petitioner for non deposit of TDS by the [2024:RJ-JP:47183-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-16282/2024] employer. On 21.09.2023, the petitioner was served a notice under Section 245 of the Act of 1961 for adjusting the refund due against the outstanding demand. The grievance raised by petitioner on 15.12.2023 was considered and case was closed on 24.04.2024. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the employer had already deducted the TDS and the petitioner is entitled to credit of the amount of TDS deducted. It is further argued that the demand for TDS amount to double taxation and no adjustment under Section 245 of the Act of 1961 be made. 4. Learned counsel for respondents Mr.Sandeep Pathak appears on advance notice submits that challenge in the petition is to the show cause notice. 5. Heard counsel for the parties. 6. For the demand created against the petitioner for non deposit of the TDS by the employer, the petitioner has a statutory remedy of appeal. There is no pleading made that the demand for Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13 has been challenged and the proceedings are pending. 7. The second prayer in the petition is for quashing of the notice issued under Section 245 of the Act of 1961. The petitioner has to respond to the impugned notice and the respondent after considering the reply shall proceed in accordance with law, to pass an order. If aggrieved of order, the petitioner shall have statutory remedy. 8. No interference is called for in the writ jurisdiction. [2024:RJ-JP:47183-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-16282/2024] 9. The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedies in accordance with law against the demand created for Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13. 10. The petitioner may file response to the notice issued under Section 245 of the Act of 1961. There is no doubt in eventuality of reply being filed within two weeks from today, the department shall proceed in accordance with law. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Riya/14 "