TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 243X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... measures can always be initiated against such payers. Revenue is correct in pointing out that for long after issuing notice under Section 266(3) of the Act, petitioner has not brought this fact to the notice of the respondent No.2 which led the respondent No.2 to make recoveries from the bank account of the petitioner. In that view of the matter, at best petitioner may not be entitled to claim interest on the amount to be refunded. Petition is disposed of as taking note of the fact that the respondents have lifted the bank account attachment, no need to quash the attachment. Two impugned notices dated 5th February, 2018 as at annexure “B” to the petition and 10th September, 2018 as at annexure “J” to the Petition for recovery are quashed. The respondents shall refund a sum of ₹ 3,67,600/to the petitioner within four weeks from today. If so done, there shall be no interest liability, failing which beyond such period the respondents shall pay simple interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on such amount till actual payment. - WRIT PETITION NO.90 OF 2019 - - - Dated:- 30-1-2019 - AKIL KURESHI AND M.S.SANKLECHA, JJ. Ms. Neha Anchliya with Mr. Naresh Jain i/by M/s. Argud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d notice dated 5th February, 2018, which was addressed to the Branch Manager of State Bank of India attaching the bank account of the petitioner in the said bank for recovery of an amount of ₹ 10,36,000/. On 26th March, 2018, the respondent No.2 withdrew a sum of ₹ 2,46,900/from the petitioner's said bank account. A further sum of ₹ 1,20,700/was withdrawn from the same account on 6th April, 2018. Thus, a total of ₹ 3,67,600/came to be withdrawn by the department from petitioner's bank account for recovery of the said unpaid demand. The petitioner represented to the department under communication dated 6th April, 2018 and objected to the attachment of the bank account pointing out as under: (i) The petitioner had noticed that there was a shortfall of TDS of ₹ 9 lakhs which can relate only to the tax deducted at source by the purchaser of the flat which may not have been deposited with the department. (ii) The purchasers had already deducted the tax at source in terms of Section 194IA of the Act. The petitioner has already offered the sale consideration of ₹ 9 crores to tax in the return filed. (iii) The petitioner referred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e tax deducted at source has been paid to the Central Government or not, because elaborate provisions are made under the Act for recovery of tax deducted at source from the person who has deducted such tax. 21. In the present case, the petitioner assessee has furnished monthly pay slips and bank statements to show that from his salary tax was deducted at source by the employer respondent No. 6. Authenticity of the said pay slips and bank statements have not been disputed by the revenue. Thus, it is clear that the tax has been deducted at source by the respondent No. 6 from the salary paid to the petitioner. Therefore, the only question to be considered is, if the employer-respondent No. 6 has failed to deposit the tax deducted at source from the salary income of the petitioner to the credit of the Central Government, whether the revenue can recover the TDS amount with interest once again from the petitioner? 22. In the present case, though the respondent No. 6 has deducted the tax at source from the salary income of the petitioner, the respondent No. 6 has not issued the TDS certificate in Form No. 16 to the petitioner. As a result, the petitioner is not entitled to avail ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . and till the said TDS amount with interest is recovered there shall be a charge on all the assets of such person or the company. Penalty under Section 221 of the Act and rigorous imprisonment under Section 276B of the Act can also be imposed upon such defaulting person or the company. Thus, complete machinery is provided under the Act for recovery of tax deducted at source from the person who has deducted such tax at source and the revenue is barred from recovering the TDS amount from the person from whose income, tax has been deducted at source. Therefore, the fact that the revenue is unable to recover the tax deducted at source from the person who has deducted such tax would not entitle the revenue to recover the said amount once again from the employee-assessee, in view of the specific bar contained in Section 205 of the Act. 24. As stated earlier, in the present case the petitioner-assessee has established that from his salary income, tax has been deducted at source by the employer-respondent No. 6 and, therefore, the revenue has to recover the said TDS amount with interest and penalty from the respondent No. 6 alone and the revenue cannot seek to recover the said amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
