TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 64
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he following reliefs: i. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or Mandamus or appropriate writ, direction or order setting aside the Impugned Intimation dated 15.01.2014 issued by the Respondent No. 3 under Section 143(1) of the Act raising a demand of tax of Rs. 21,50,150/- (Rupees Twenty-One Lakh Fifty Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Only) for the Assessment Year 2012-13 as being arbitrary, illegal and unreasonable; and. ii. Issue a Writ of Certiorari or Mandamus or appropriate writ, direction or order setting aside the Impugned Letters dated 02.12.2021 and 20.01.2022 issued by the Respondent No. 2 in the Petitioner's case under Section 143(1)(a) of the Act raising a demand of tax of Rs. 21,50,150/* (Rupees Twenty-One Lakh Fifty....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner sent reply dated 24.02.2014 informing that apparently his employer had not deposited the tax deducted at source, so the outstanding dues be recovered by the respondents from his employer. Thereafter vide letter dated 31.03.2014, petitioner further informed the respondents that he had received salary in Financial Year 2011-12 after deduction of tax but the same was not being reflected in Form 26AS for which petitioner could not be held liable so respondents should keep the demand in abeyance. 2.5 By way of circular dated 01.06.2015 followed by Office Memorandum dated 11.03.2016 of Central Board of Direct Taxes, it was reiterated that in accordance with Section 205 of the Income Tax Act, the assessee should not be called upon to pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and can be effected against the petitioner in view of the admitted position that the tax payable on salary of the petitioner was being regularly deducted at source by his employer namely Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. who did not deposit the deducted tax with the revenue. 5. The said issue stands covered by the judgment of this court in the case of Sanjay Sudan vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, [2023] 148 taxmann.com 329 (Delhi). The relevant observations made in the said judgment are set forth hereafter: "5. Mr Sanjay Kumar, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondents/revenue, says that the credit for withholding tax can only be given in terms of Section 199 of the Act, when the amount is received....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the extent tax has been deducted from his income where the tax is deductible at source under the provisions of Chapter XVII. Thus the Act puts a bar on direct demand against the assessee in such cases and the demand on account of tax credit mismatch cannot be enforced coercively..." 9. The question, therefore, which comes to fore, is as to whether the respondents/revenue can do indirectly what they cannot do directly. 9.1 The adjustment of demand against future refund amounts to an indirect recovery of tax, which is barred under Section 205 of the Act. 9.2 The fact that the instruction merely provides that no coercive measure will be taken against the assessee, in our view, falls short of what is put in place ....