TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (5) TMI 37
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t within the meaning of Section 201 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3.It is further submitted that earlier W.P.Nos. 28199-205 of 2015 were filed before this court where the petitioners along with others had faced demands from the respondent Income Tax Department. 4.It is submitted that this court after considering the grievance of the petitioners therein which included writ petitioners herein passed the following orders:- "5. There is no dispute that the 2nd respondent was a tenant under the petitioners herein. Now, the petitioners claim that the 2nd respondent vacated the premises long back. It is the specific case of the petitioners that though the 2nd respondent company effected TDS, it had failed to remit the same into the account of the Income Tax Department. This is a disputed fact which cannot be resolved in this writ petition without any material and in the absence of the 2nd respondent. Having regard to the fact that the deduction of TDS from the amount payable to the petitioners towards rent as well as remittance of the same were to be made by the 2nd respondent, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the respondents 1 and 3 to consider the letter/representation of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....No.77 of typed set of papers. 11.It is further submitted, as per section 194-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, TDS of rents does not contemplate payment of rent by cash alone. Hence, adjustment is also permitted as actual payment of cash is not the only mode. Therefore, going by the finding of the 4th respondent and the undertaking the TDS was in fact deducted. Thus, the 3rd respondent should have applied Section 205 and not proceeded against the petitioners. 12.It is submitted that corresponding corrections have not been carried out in website, which continues to show the mismatch. Further, petitioners have also been issued with the impugned demand notices arbitrarily and unreasonably. 13.It is further contention of the petitioner in these writ petitions that the second respondent having Deducted Tax at Source from and out of payments made to the petitioners, the petitioners cannot be saddled with tax liability as it was the duty of the Income Tax Department to recover such Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) from the second respondent. 14.Defending the impugned demand proceedings, the learned standing counsel for the Income Tax Department submits that the second respondent has made ce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....redit of the Central Government, then he would be treated as a defaulter under section 201 (1) of theIncome Tax Act, 1961. 20. It is submitted that assessments were completed under section 143 and were modified under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and if the petitioners were so aggrieved by any wrong adjustments made in the Assessment Orders as rectified under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, it was open for the petitioners to file an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). It is therefore submitted that the writ petitions were without any merits and were liable to be dismissed cost. 21.I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in the respective writ petitions and the learned counsel for the respondent Income Tax Department. 22.The second respondent was a tenant of the petitioners and few others who belong to the same family. The 2nd respondent had committed default in making payments to the petitioners. Though copy of the lease agreement signed between the parties is not available for perusal, a copy of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 30.7.2014 signed on behalf of the petitioners and other owners w....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....10 wherein it is acknowledged by the second respondent the second respondent and failed to remit Tax Deducted at Source for an amount of Rs. 18,94,875/- and that the aforesaid amount had not been paid by the second respondent and that the second respondent would pay the same to the credit of the Income Tax Department by 30.9.2014 and to secure the payment to the credit of the Income Tax Department, the second respondent had also issued a post-dated -cheque for the aforesaid amount in favour of the petitioners which was to be presented, as the second respondent failed to make such payments to the credit of the Income Tax Department within such time. 29.There is some confusion in the amount that was to be deducted and actually deducted by the second respondent. In Annexure II to the Memorandum of Understanding Dated 30.7.2014, for the Financial Year 2010- 11 [corresponding Assessment Year 2011-12] total tax to be deducted has been shown as Rs. 3,,89, 680/- for each of the petitioners whereas the tax that was credited to the account of the Income Tax Department has been shown as only Rs. 55, 457/-. 30. Details of the tax that was remitted the credit of the Central Government as per ....