In the case of Chintan Bindra v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (W.P.(C) 2164 of 2022), the petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking relief to declare that the tax and interest demand reflected on the income tax portal for the Assessment Years (AY) 2009-10, 2011-12, and 2012-13, due to TDS deducted by the employer (Kingfisher Airlines Ltd.), should not be imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner further sought a direction to delete the demand from the portal and official records.
The Court observed that although the petitioner’s salary was subject to TDS, the employer failed to deposit the deducted tax with the revenue despite the petitioner’s communications. The Court stated that once the petitioner accepted the salary after TDS deduction, he had no control over the subsequent payment to the revenue; it became the employer’s responsibility as a tax-collecting agent.
The Court held that penalizing the petitioner for the employer’s failure would be unjust, and the revenue could pursue action against the employer for the recovery of the deducted tax. The Court clarified that if the petitioner recovered any amount representing the deducted tax from the employer for the mentioned assessment years, he should promptly deposit it with the revenue.
