TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (10) TMI 1208
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent No. 1, which is stated to be on account of non-deposit of the TDS amounts by respondent No. 2 (petitioners' employer) be quashed and set aside. For convenience, we note the prayers as made in the first petition [Writ Petition (L) No. 31647of 2024; Neenad Ashok Kadam Vs. Income Tax Officer & Ors.] which read thus: a) Issue a writ of certiorari thereby calling for the record of proceedings culminating into issuance of the Impugned Demand dated (Exhibit A to the Petition) after examining the legality, validity and propriety thereof. the Impugned Demand be quashed and set aside; b) Issue a writ of mandamus and/or any other writ. direction or order directing Respondent No. 1 to give credit to the Petitioner towards the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....24. It is further stated that there are also other defaults of respondent No. 2 in statutory payments like provident fund etc. In such circumstances, the petitioners concerned with their survival were constrained to leave respondent No. 2's employment. At such point of time, there were substantial dues payable to the petitioners including salary for the period prior to petitioners' leaving the services of respondent No. 2. 3. It is the petitioners' case that on such backdrop the petitioners were shocked to receive from respondent No. 1 the impugned notices demanding payment of income tax alongwith interest, on account of non-deposit of TDS amount by respondent No. 2, which according to the petitioners, were shown to have been deducted fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y the deductor-Recovery of demand against the deductee assessee. Vide letter of even number dated 01.06.2015, the Board had issued directions to the field officers that in case of an assessee whose tax has been deducted at source but not deposited to the Government's account by the deductor, the deductee assessee shall not be called upon to pay the demand to the extent tax has been deducted from his income. It was further specified that section 205 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 puts a bar on direct demand against the assessee in such cases and the demand on account of tax credit mismatch in such situations cannot be enforced coercively. 2. However, instances have come to the notice of the Board that these directions are ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ficer would not take any coercive steps against those petitioners. Accepting such statement made on behalf of the Revenue, those petitions were disposed of. In this view of the matter, learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would be entitled to the reliefs as prayed for. 6. Ms. Bharati has also drawn our attention to the decision of this Court dated 10 September 2024 rendered on the batch of Petitions where in case of the employees of Respondent No. 2 had approached this Court in similar circumstances and the Court had allowed their Writ Petitions. It is her contention that the Petitioners are similarly placed and the orders passed by this Court on the said proceedings are squarely applicable in the present fact....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ary of the payment to be received from the employer and who would also become the beneficiary of the tax being deposited at source on his behalf. Such is the object of the provision. However, what the department has done is that without a warrant in law, the liability to pay such tax is being foisted on the petitioners, which is clearly in the teeth of Section 205 of the Income Tax Act. Thus, looked from any angle, it was not permissible for respondent No. 2 to raise any such demand against the petitioners. 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, we are inclined to allow these two Petitions in terms of the following order : ORDER (I) The impugned demand notices dated 28 March 2022 in Writ Petition (L.) No. 31647 of 2024 and dated ....