TMI Blog2016 (6) TMI 500X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er, out of total tax so deposited, the Revenue's system did not reflect the tax collection and deposit of a sum of ₹ 1,38,683/- in the form of section 26AS. It was on this account that the Assessing Officer did not grant benefit of such tax paid by the petitioner which resulted into a demand of tax which would presumably include interest. Whatever be the reason, the petitioner cannot be a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16294 of 2015 - - - Dated:- 7-6-2016 - MR. AKIL KURESHI AND MR. A.J. SHASTRI, JJ. FOR THE PETITONER : MR PM LAKHANI, ADVOCATE and MRS R P LAKHANI, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MR MEHUL S SHAH, ADVOCATE, MR SUDHIR M MEHTA, ADVOCATE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) The petitioner has prayed for a direction quashing recovery ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case of the petitioner was not reflected. As a result of this, the respondent authority issued a demand of ₹ 1,38,683/- on 13.6.2013 towards petitioner's outstanding tax dues. The petitioner resisted such recovery despite which subsequent recovery notices were also issued. 4. Having perused the documents on record with the assistance of the learned counsel of the parties, we notice th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the judgment dated 23.6.2014 in Special Civil Application No. 2349 of 2014 in the same set of circumstances considered the issue as under: 10. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Bombay High Court and Gauhati High Court. Applying the aforesaid two decisions of the Bombay High Court as well as Gauhati High Court, the facts of the case on hand and even considering Section 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of tax deducted at source to the petitioner-assessee-deductee to the extent form no.16A issued by the deductor have been issued. Consequently, the impugned demand notice dated 6.1.2012(Annexure D) is quashed and set aside. However, it is clarified and observed that if the department is of the opinion deductor has not deposited the said amount of tax deducted at source, it will always be open for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
