TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (2) TMI 243
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner and to permanently restrain the respondents from recovering balance amount of Rs. 6,69,250/for which a further notice dated 10th September, 2018 was issued by the respondent No.2. 3. Brief facts are as under : Petitioner is an individual. The petitioner had sold an immovable property under a deed dated 23rd November, 2015 to Mr. and Mrs. Bhanpurwala for total consideration of Rs. 9 crores. The purchasers of the said property had made a net payment of Rs. 8 crores 91 lakhs to the petitioner after deducting tax at source at 1% of the payment in terms of section 194IA of the Act. 4. The petitioner filed the return of income for the assessment year 201617 on 12th October, 2017 declaring total income of Rs. 2,28,62,110/. In such re....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....1,20,700/was withdrawn from the same account on 6th April, 2018. Thus, a total of Rs. 3,67,600/came to be withdrawn by the department from petitioner's bank account for recovery of the said unpaid demand. The petitioner represented to the department under communication dated 6th April, 2018 and objected to the attachment of the bank account pointing out as under: (i) The petitioner had noticed that there was a shortfall of TDS of Rs. 9 lakhs which can relate only to the tax deducted at source by the purchaser of the flat which may not have been deposited with the department. (ii) The purchasers had already deducted the tax at source in terms of Section 194IA of the Act. The petitioner has already offered the sale consideration of Rs. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... paying salary to the employee had deducted tax at source Rs. 6.66 lakhs. Subsequently, disputes arose between the employer and employee due to which service of the employee was terminated. The employee filed the return of income claiming credit of TDS of Rs. 6.66 lakhs. The Assessing Officer issued intimation under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act denying credit of TDS of Rs. 6.66 lakhs on the ground that such amount was not deposited by the employer. This Court in such background after referring to Section 205 of the Act held and observed as under: "20. From the language of Section 205, it is clear that once the tax is deducted at source, the same cannot be levied once again on the assessee who has suffered the deduction. Once it is establis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....205 of the Act comes into operation and the revenue is barred from recovering the TDS amount once again from the employee from whose income, TDS amount has been deducted. It is pertinent to note that the purpose of issuing TDS certificate under Section 203 of the Act is to enable the assessee to avail credit of the tax deducted at source in the relevant assessment year. If the TDS certificate is not issued, then under Section 199 of the Act, the assessee from whose income, tax has been deducted at source will not be entitled to take credit of the said amount. In that event, on account of the non availability of the credit, the assessee would be liable to pay tax once again even though the tax was deducted at source. Thus, it would be a case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t 12% p.a. and till the said TDS amount with interest is recovered there shall be a charge on all the assets of such person or the company. Penalty under Section 221 of the Act and rigorous imprisonment under Section 276B of the Act can also be imposed upon such defaulting person or the company. Thus, complete machinery is provided under the Act for recovery of tax deducted at source from the person who has deducted such tax at source and the revenue is barred from recovering the TDS amount from the person from whose income, tax has been deducted at source. Therefore, the fact that the revenue is unable to recover the tax deducted at source from the person who has deducted such tax would not entitle the revenue to recover the said amount on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....case of Yashpal Sahni (supra) under such circumstances the petitioner cannot be asked to pay the same again. It is always open for the department and infact the Act contains sufficient provisions, to make coercive recovery of such unpaid tax from the payer whose primary responsibility is to deposit the same with the Government revenue scrupulously and promptly. If the payer after deducting the tax fails to deposit it in the Government revenue, measures can always be initiated against such payers. 9. Counsel for the revenue is correct in pointing out that for long after issuing notice under Section 266(3) of the Act, petitioner has not brought this fact to the notice of the respondent No.2 which led the respondent No.2 to make recoveries fr....