ANUSUYA ALVA Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is an assessee under the IT Act, 1961 (for short, the Act ). This is a peculiar case where the petitioner-assessee is challenging the enforcement of demand made at Annex.-H dt. 5th Dec. , 2002, wherein it is indicated that on verification of the records by the authorities under the Act, it was found that income-tax arrears was due from the petitioner for the period as indicated therein, and the petitioner-assessee was called upon to make payment of the amount within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which coercive recovery proceedings would be initiated against the petitioner. The amounts mentioned in Annex.-H are as follows : assessment year Amount (in Rupees)1997-98 10,382 1998-99 61,111 1999-2000 2,01,176 2000-01 2,87,852 2001-02 1,09,678

(2.) THE assessee had responded to the notice, pointing out that the demands for the years 1999-2000 to 2001-02 were not correct or justified; that the said demand included even the amounts that had been deducted by her tenant, one M/s Krisen Development Corporation, who had taken the property belonging to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs 1,35,000; that the said tenant had punctually deducted 20 per cent of the rent amount in terms of Section 194-I of the act by remitting the rent less 20 per cent to the petitioner every month, but, in fact, had not issued the corresponding deduction certificate in Form 16a and though this aspect had also been brought to the notice of the Department, no action as such had been taken, but nevertheless, the amount having not been remitted to the credit of the Department by the tenant and the department having not realized the amount, is now looking to the petitioner for recovery of this amount and to such extent, the demand cannot be raised on the petitioner. It is on such stand, the present writ petition is filed praying for quashing of this demand notice to the extent of the amount mentioned therein, being the amount which had already been deducted by the tenant of the petitioner whether remitted or not to the Department.

(3.) IT appears that the petitioner, in fact, had preferred a revision petition to the CIT under Section 264 of the Act, disputing the demand, but ultimately that was not of much success and the petitioner is at the doors of this Court invoking jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the constitution of India.