Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Penalty For Monthly MGQ Shortfall If Annual Target Met': Supreme Court Upholds Quashing Of Excise Department Demands For Liquor Licensees 'Murder Went Unavenged, But Courts Cannot Convict On Mere Assumptions': Supreme Court Acquits Accused In 1988 Murder Case, Quashes High Court's Remit Order 'NCSC Cannot Pass Mandatory Adjudicatory Orders Directing Payment Of Arrears': Supreme Court Clarifies Commission's Powers Under Article 338 "'Cannot Present Fait Accompli': Supreme Court Upholds Denial Of NOC To Airman For Skipping Prior Permission To Apply For Civil Post" Supreme Court Upholds 2017 Notification For Ex Post Facto Environmental Clearances, Quashes 2021 Office Memorandum As Impermissible Executive Overreach Workman Fails To Prove 240 Days Continuous Work; Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Denial Of Reinstatement For "Abandonment Of Service" Party Cannot Take Contradictory Stands In Same Case, Admissions In Pleadings Bind Them Under Order XII Rule 6 CPC: Telangana High Court Delayed Recovery Of Weapon From Open Space Casts Serious Doubt On Prosecution Story: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Convicts Procedural Irregularities By Public Servants Serve As Circumstantial Evidence Of Conspiracy In Corruption Cases: Kerala High Court Blaming Previous Counsel For Omission Does Not Satisfy 'Due Diligence' Test To Amend Plaint After Trial Commences: Punjab & Haryana High Court Muslim Man's Second Marriage Under Special Marriage Act Void Despite Personal Law Permitting Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Criminal Antecedents Disentitles Accused To Discretionary Relief Of Bail: Orissa High Court Section 311 CrPC | Delay Or Absence Of Examination-In-Chief No Bar To Summon Material Witnesses: Allahabad High Court Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction To Declare Genuineness Of Wills Or Validity Of Settlement Deeds; Parties Must Approach Civil Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Demand Of Bribe Is Sine Qua Non For Conviction Under PC Act, Mere Recovery Of Tainted Money Not Enough: Bombay High Court Title And Ownership Irrelevant In Suit Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act; Plaint Liable To Be Rejected If Filed Beyond Six Months: Delhi High Court Receipt Of Pension By Widow Can Be Considered To Determine 'Just Compensation' But Not To Deprive Claimants Of Award: Calcutta High Court FSL Report Lacking Scientific Criteria And Data Is Inadmissible In Evidence: Allahabad High Court Issues Directives For Testing Viscera Standard Of Proof In Railway Accident Claims Is Preponderance Of Probabilities, Not Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Gujarat High Court No Second Statutory Appeal Lies Against Conviction By Appellate Court Reversing Acquittal; Revision Is Sole Remedy: Supreme Court Wives' Property Is Their Own, Not Husband's: Supreme Court REJECTS High Court's Succession Formula; Restores Clarity For Christian Inheritance

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