SHARP ENGINEERS THROUGH PARTNER, BABUBHAI J PATEL V. INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS-3

SCA/4772/2019

AI Insights

In this case, Sharp Engineers, a partnership firm, filed a writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the Income Tax Officer TDS-3, challenging the recovery notices issued for short payment of TDS for the assessment year 2009-10. The firm argued that despite not receiving any order under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, recovery notices were issued. The Revenue contended that the matter was under process for verification and correction at the level of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Ghaziabad. The court decided not to quash the notices but requested the CPC to expedite the correction process.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 769350 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MAUNA BHATT
• Assessee Lawyers: HARDIK VORA
• Keywords: Assessment Year 2009-10; Certiorari; Certiorari; Income Tax; Recovery notices; TDS
• Section: 201(1); 201(1A)

Judgement Text

"C/SCA/4772/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4772 of 2019 ========================================================= SHARP ENGINEERS THROUGH PARTNER, BABUBHAI J PATEL Versus INCOME TAX OFFICER TDS­3 ========================================================== Appearance: MR. HARDIK V VORA(7123) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Respondent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA Date : 16/02/2021 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. By this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ applicant has prayed for the following reliefs: “a. A writ of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned recovery notices dated 04.06.2018 and 24.12.2018 for the assessment year 2009­10 and directing the respondent to delete demand of Rs.2,34,020/­ raised on account of short payment of TDS; b. Pass any other order(s) as this Hon'ble May deem fit and more appropriate in order to grant interim relief to the petitioner. “ 2. We have heard Mr. Hardik V. Vora, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant and Mr. M.M.Bhatt, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mrs. Mauna M. Bhatt, the learned Sr. Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue. 3. The controversy involved in the present litigation is in a narrow compass. The writ Page 1 of 4 C/SCA/4772/2019 ORDER applicant being a Partnership Firm had deducted the TDS under the various provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “The Act, 1961”). The assessee had also filed the TDS return in physical form for the F.Y. 2008­09 relevant to the A.Y. 2009­10 after paying due taxes. 4. It is the case of the writ applicant that, in spite of the fact that, the writ applicant has not received any order under Sections 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act, 1961, the recovery notices are still being issued by the Assessing Officer for the recovery of the short payment. 5. In response to various recovery notices by the Assessing Officer, the writ applicant vide letter dated 26.12.2018 has furnished all the necessary information to the Assessing Officer requesting him to grant the credit of TDS deposited and cancel the demand raised. However, the respondent authority is neither giving credit nor stating any reason for not giving credit and issuing notices for recovery. 6. In such circumstances referred to above, the writ applicant is here before this Court with the present writ application. 7. Mr. Bhatt, the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Revenue invited the attention of this Court to the letter addressed by the Income Tax Page 2 of 4 C/SCA/4772/2019 ORDER Officer, TDS­3, Ahmedabad, dated 20.03.2019 to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, making a request to reduce the demand on the TRACES. According to Mr. Bhatt, the matter is pending at the end of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The letter is at page No.22 (Annexure­R­1) to the writ application. 8. In the aforesaid context, Mr. Bhatt also invited the attention of this Court to the averments made in Paragraph No.3.5 of the affidavit­in­ reply filed on behalf of the Revenue. Paragraph No.3.5 of the Affidavit­in­Reply reads thus: “3.5 With reference to para 4.1 to 5.1, it is submitted that this is general submission and prayer of the petitioner and therefore, the same requires to be looked into in the context of the above discussion and matter of facts. The outstanding demand in subject is under verification and correction/deletion of demand is under process and the petitioner has not been pressed to pay the said demand, therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is pre­mature , not correct and requires to be quashed.” 9. Thus, it appears from the above that, although the stance of the respondent herein is that the outstanding demand in subject is under the verification and the correction/deletion of the outstanding demand is under the process at the level of CPC, Ghaziabad (U.P). The Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Ghaziabad (U.P) is not before us as one of the party respondents. However, as the controversy is in narrow Page 3 of 4 C/SCA/4772/2019 ORDER compass, we dispose of this writ application with a request to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Ghaziabad (U.P) to effect the necessary correction/deletion of the outstanding demand shown online within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Registry shall forward one copy of this order to the Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC), Aaykar Bhavan, Sector­3, Vaishali, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. 10. With the above, present writ application stands disposed of. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (ILESH J. VORA,J) SUCHIT Page 4 of 4 "