Priyank Agrawal v. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Ito Ward

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16282/2024 Priyank Agrawal S/o Lt. Shri Gopal Agrawal, R/o - Plot No. 165-B, Vidhyut Nagar- B, Ajmer Road, Jaipur Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ITO Ward No.2(1), Jaipur Rajasthan.2(1), Jaipur Rajasthan. 2. Central Processing Unit, Income Tax Department, 1stFloor, Prestige Alpha No. 48/1, 48/2, BeratenaagraharaBegur, Hosur Rd, Uttarahalli, Hobli, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560100Floor, Prestige Alpha No. 48/1, 48/2, BeratenaagraharaBegur, Hosur Rd, Uttarahalli, Hobli, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560100 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajatshatru Mina, Adv.For Respondent(s): Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Adv.For Respondent(s): Mr. Sandeep Pathak, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 18/11/2024 -AVNEESH JHINGAN, J : 1.This petition is filed seeking quashing of tax demand forAssessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13 on account of non depositof Tax Deducted at Source (for short ‘TDS’) by the employer.Further prayer is to quash the notice issued under Section 245 ofthe Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act of 1961’). 2.The brief facts are that the petitioner was employed withKingfisher Airlines. For Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13,the employer deducted TDS but did not deposit it. As per thepleadings, demand of Rs.16,94,330/- and 18,33,150/- and wascreated against the petitioner for non deposit of TDS by the employer. On 21.09.2023, the petitioner was served a noticeunder Section 245 of the Act of 1961 for adjusting the refund dueagainst the outstanding demand. The grievance raised bypetitioner on 15.12.2023 was considered and case was closed on24.04.2024. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the employerhad already deducted the TDS and the petitioner is entitled tocredit of the amount of TDS deducted. It is further argued that thedemand for TDS amount to double taxation and no adjustmentunder Section 245 of the Act of 1961 be made. 4.Learned counsel for respondents Mr.Sandeep Pathak appearson advance notice submits that challenge in the petition is to theshow cause notice. 5.Heard counsel for the parties. 6.For the demand created against the petitioner for nondeposit of the TDS by the employer, the petitioner has a statutoryremedy of appeal. There is no pleading made that the demand forAssessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13 has been challenged andthe proceedings are pending. 7.The second prayer in the petition is for quashing of thenotice issued under Section 245 of the Act of 1961. The petitionerhas to respond to the impugned notice and the respondent afterconsidering the reply shall proceed in accordance with law, to passan order. If aggrieved of order, the petitioner shall have statutoryremedy. 8.No interference is called for in the writ jurisdiction. 9.The writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitionerto avail remedies in accordance with law against the demandcreated for Assessment Year 2011-12 and 2012-13.10.The petitioner may file response to the notice issued underSection 245 of the Act of 1961. There is no doubt in eventuality ofreply being filed within two weeks from today, the departmentshall proceed in accordance with law. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Riya/14