9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1079X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uctee, i.e., the assessee, can be called upon to pay tax equivalent to the deduction made ? (ii) Whether the respondents/revenue can adjust the withheld tax which has not been deposited by the deductor in the Central Government Account, against the refund due and payable to the deductee/assessee? 2. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was an employee of Kingfisher Airlines Limited [hereafter referred to as "KAL"] from 12.01.2008 up until 10.02.2012. 3. It is also not in dispute that insofar as the assessment year (AY) 2012-13 is concerned, the petitioner's employer, i.e., KAL, had withheld, towards withholding tax payable on salary, an amount equivalent to Rs.13,98,901/-. 3.1 The record shows that the withholding tax is reflected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved in the Central Government account. 5.1 It is, therefore, his submission that while no coercive measure can be taken against the petitioner, the demand will remain outstanding and cannot, thus, be effaced. 6. We have heard counsel for the parties. 7. According to us, Section 205 read with instruction dated 01.06.2015, clearly point in the direction that the deductee/assessee cannot be called upon to pay tax, which has been deducted at source from his income. The plain language of Section 205 of the Act points in this direction. For the sake of convenience, Section 205 is extracted hereafter: "Section 205 Bar against direct demand on assessee. Where tax is deductible at the source under the foregoing provisions of this Chapter, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the petitioner is right inasmuch as neither can the demand qua the tax withheld by the deductor/employer be recovered from him, nor can the same amount be adjusted against the future refund, if any, payable to him. 11. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, we are inclined to quash the notice dated 28.02.2018, and also hold that the respondents/revenue are not entitled in law to adjust the demand raised for AY 2012-13 against any other AY. It is ordered accordingly. 12. Notably, in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has adverted to the fact that he is entitled to refund of Rs.1,94,410/- in respect of AY 2015-16. 12.1 Mr Sanjay Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel, who appears for the respondent/revenue says the amount claimed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
