TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 835
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh Court assisted by Mr. A. Barua, Advocate for respondent No. 5. Ms. S. Agarwal, Advocate for respondent No. 6. JUDGMENT & O RDER (ORAL) (VIJAY BISHNOI, CJ) Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. K. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Standing Counsel, Income Tax Department; Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel/Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court for respondent No. 5 and Ms. S. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6. 2. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the demand notices issued by the Income Tax Department under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter to be referred to be "Income Tax Act") p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the Income Tax Department to the petitioner is as follows: Sl No. Financial Years Demand Reference Number Amount demanded 1. 2008-2009 No. 2010200910054446045T Rs. 1,35,550.00 2. 2010-2011 No. 2012201110006122814T Rs. 3,16,010.00 3. 2011-2012 No. 2014201237044116455T Rs. 2,72,680.00 4. 2012-2013 No. 2013201337029267155T Rs. 60,000.00 5. 2013-2014 No. 2015201437005381246T Rs. 56,130.00 Total: Rs. 8,40,370.00 5. The petitioner further contends that being aggrieved with the aforesaid demand for tax, he had furnished explanation to the respondent authorities along with Form 16AS and also furnished the Certificates of Deduction issued by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amrup (Metro) Treasury, Panbazar, on behalf of the petitioner on account of TDS from his arrear payment pertaining to the period 01.01.2006 to 31.08.2007. 8. Pursuant to the direction of the learned Single Judge, the then Registrar General of this Court has filed an affidavit dated 13.09.2023, wherein the proof of deposit of TDS is filed as Annexures 2 and 3. The relevant para of the affidavit filed by the then Registrar General of this Court is reproduced hereunder: "5. That the deponent begs to state that the writ petitioner joined as Judge of this Hon'ble Court in the month of October, 1997 and demitted Office of Judges of this Hon'ble Court in the month of August, 2007. Against the bill amount of Rs.2,57,670/- in respect of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion and treasury token numbers are prepared as a part of the Office Record. An amount of Rs.2,60,000.00 Rs.2,20,000.00 Rs.60,000.00 and Rs.56,133.00 were deducted from the account of the petitioner for the financial year 2010-2011, 2011-2012, 2012-2013 and 2013- 2014 respectively." 10. In response to the writ petition, affidavit-in-opposition dated 22.01.2025 has been filed on behalf of the Income Tax Department (respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4), wherein the specific stand of the Department is that the onus of deposition of income tax deducted at source lies with the employer and after the employer has deducted the income tax at the source, it has to be deposited against the respective PAN. It is further submitted that only thereafter, the TD....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lowing credit of the demanded amount in computing the income tax of the petitioner for the aforesaid Financial Years is also unreasonable and cannot be sustained. 13. The law is well settled on this point. The responsibility to deposit the amount deducted at the source as tax is of the person who is responsible to deduct the tax at source. It is also the responsibility of the person who has deducted the tax at source to deposit the same with the Central Government. Where the tax is deducted and deposited, as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, by the person who is responsible for deduction and deposition, the assessee cannot be forced to pay the tax which has already been deducted and deposited. [See: (i) Assistant Commissioner of ....