TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 1733
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act") raising a demand for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12, and the consequential Recovery Notices and to allow the legitimate tax credit for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 and to issue refund of taxes for various years wrongfully adjusted against the demand for Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12. 3. The Petition has been heard on several occasions. The Affidavit-in-Reply filed by the Respondents, the Rejoinder Affidavit filed by the Petitioner, and the Additional Affidavit, have been taken on record and duly considered. 4. The challenges raised in the present Writ Petition are two-fold: a. Firstly, in respect of Assessment Year 2010-11, the tax was duly deducted at source (TDS) by the payer i.e., M/s. Tricom Fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ng that the tax deducted at source could not be deposited owing to the nonavailability of funds (Page No. 92 Exhibit O2). The Petitioner thereafter filed an Application under Section 154 of the Act seeking rectification of the demand, requested stay of recovery and made repeated representations for grant of TDS credit. However, recovery proceedings were initiated against it, followed by a Recovery Notice for Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12 and adjustment of the Petitioner's refund for subsequent Assessment Years against the outstanding demand for Assessment Year 2010-11 and 2011-12. It is the Petitioner's case that no intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act for Assessment Year 2011-12 was ever served upon it. Despite pursuing....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rofessional, which stood admitted, including the TDS component. It was further contended that once the Petitioner's claim has been admitted, the Petitioner cannot simultaneously seek credit of the said TDS from the Income Tax Department. Per contra, Mr. Devendra Jain, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, relying on page 212 of the limited Affidavit-in-Reply filed by the Resolution Professional of Respondent No. 4, submitted that the claim admitted by the Resolution Professional pertains to the unpaid dues receivable from Respondent No. 4 and not to the TDS amount already deducted from the payments made to the Petitioner. It was further submitted that the Petitioner could not have lodged a claim in respect of the TDS amount as the cor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ically clarify whether any intimation giving rise to the said demand had been issued or served upon the Petitioner. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No. 1 filed an Additional Affidavit dated 14th February 2025, wherein it was stated that the proof of communication in respect of the service of imitation under Section 143(1) was not traceable. In this regard, it is the contention of the Petitioner that no demand can be enforced against it without service of the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act. In this regard, Mr. Jain, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, placed reliance upon the recent decision of this Court in Udyan Nair v. Union of India [2026] 183 taxmann.com 47 (Bombay), the relevant extract whereof is reproduced hereunder:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s, when the intimation under Section 143(1) is to be considered as a notice of demand as referred to in Section 156, then as per sub Section (1) of Section 156, it is mandatorily required to be served upon the assessee. The use of the words "shall" in Section 156(1) emphasize on mandatory service. 21. Admittedly it is now the case before us that even though it is claimed by the Respondents that the intimation under Section 143(1) was issued for the relevant Assessment Year 2010-11, however the Respondents have failed to bring on record any such intimation claimed to have been issued under Section 143(1) or the notice of demand claimed to have been served upon the Petitioner. Even the Petitioner had asked for the same from the Respo....