Writ Jurisdiction Not Appropriate For Adjudicating Complex Title Disputes; Mutation Entries Do Not Confer Ownership: Madhya Pradesh High Court Joint Account Holder Not Liable Under Section 138 NI Act If Not A Signatory To Dishonoured Cheque: Allahabad High Court Private Individuals Accepting Money Can Be Prosecuted Under MPID Act; Nomenclature As 'Loan' Irrelevant: Supreme Court Nomenclature Of Transaction As 'Loan' Irrelevant; If Ingredients Met, It Is A 'Deposit' Under MPID Act: Supreme Court Pleadings Must State Material Facts, Not Evidence; Deficiency In Pleading Cannot Be Raised For First Time In Appeal: Supreme Court Denial Of Remission Cannot Rest Solely On Heinousness Of Crime; Justice Doesn't Permit Permanent Incarceration In Shadow Of Worst Act: Supreme Court Second Application For Rejection Of Plaint Barred By Res Judicata If Earlier Order Attained Finality: Supreme Court Section 6(5) Hindu Succession Act Is A Saving Clause, Not A Jurisdictional Bar To Partition Suits: Supreme Court Sale Of Natural Gas Via Common Carrier Pipelines Is An Inter-State Sale; UP Has No Jurisdiction To Levy VAT: Supreme Court Mediclaim Reimbursement Not Deductible From Motor Accident Compensation; Tortfeasor Can’t Benefit From Claimant’s Prudence: Supreme Court Rules Of Procedure Are Handmaid Of Justice, Not Mistress; Striking Off Defence Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Not Mechanical: Supreme Court Power To Strike Off Tenant's Defense Under Order XV Rule 5 CPC Is Discretionary, Not To Be Exercised Mechanically: Supreme Court Areas Urbanised Before 1959 Don't Require Separate Notification To Fall Under Delhi Rent Control Act: Delhi High Court Police Cannot Freeze Bank Accounts To Perform Compensatory Justice; Direct Nexus With Offence Essential: Bombay High Court FSL Probe Before Electronic Evidence Meets Section 65B Admissibility Standards: Gujarat High Court Court Shouldn't Adjudicate Rights At Stage Of Granting Leave Under Section 92 CPC, Only Prima Facie Case Required: Allahabad High Court Right To Seek Bail Based On Non-Furnishing Of 'Grounds Of Arrest' Applies Only Prospectively From November 6, 2025: Madras High Court Prior Exposure To Accused Before TIP Renders Identification Meaningless: Delhi High Court Acquits Four In Uphaar Cinema Murder Case No Particular Format Prescribed For 'Proposed Resolution' In No-Confidence Motion; Intention Of Members To Be Gathered From Document As A Whole: Orissa High Court Trial Court Cannot Grant Temporary Injunction Without Adverting To Allegations Of Fraud And Collusion: Calcutta High Court "Ganja" Definition Under NDPS Act Excludes Roots & Stems: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail As Seized Weight Included Whole Plants Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Doesn't Displace Section 37 NDPS Mandate In Commercial Quantity Cases: Orissa High Court

Assessee Shall Not Be Called Upon to Pay Tax Deducted by Employer –Protects Employee Rights: Delhi High Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling that bolsters the rights of employees, the Delhi High Court, comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Girish Kathpalia, delivered a landmark judgment on November 29, 2023, providing major relief to taxpayers across the nation. The Court decisively held that “the assessee shall not be called upon to pay tax to the extent tax has been deducted from that income,” emphasizing the protection of employees from undue tax demands.

The case, centered on a writ petition filed by Mr. Bhanu Mohan Kaila, challenged the arbitrary tax demand of Rs. 21,50,150 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. Despite tax deduction at source by his employer, Kingfisher Airlines Limited, the tax was not deposited with the revenue department. This led to the petitioner facing repeated notices of demand from the respondents.

The Court's decision was anchored in the interpretation of Section 205 of the Income Tax Act, which stipulates that an employee cannot be held liable for tax deducted at source by their employer but not deposited with the Central Government. The bench underscored the principles laid out in Sanjay Sudan vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and other similar cases, reiterating that coercive recovery of tax in such situations is barred.

In delivering the judgment, the bench observed, “We have heard counsel for the parties. 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.” This observation laid the foundation for the judgment, thereby setting a precedent for similar cases.

The Court ultimately allowed the petition, setting aside the tax demand notices and restraining the respondents from carrying out any recovery proceedings against the petitioner for the specified assessment year. However, it was clarified that if the petitioner recovers any amount of tax deducted at source from his employer, it must be deposited with the revenue.

Date of Decision:29.11.2023

BHANU MOHAN KAILA  VS UNION OF INDIA & ANR.        

Latest Legal News