VENKATACHALAM THANGAVELU Vs. ITO, WARD 70(1), DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by way of intimation dtd. 7/6/2013 under Sec. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'), a demand of Rs.12,28,508.00 was raised against the petitioner because the credit of TDS which Kingfisher Airlines had deducted from the salary of the petitioner amounting to Rs.10,34,982.00 was not given.

(2.) It is contended that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment dtd. 1/10/2024 of this Court rendered in W.P.(C) 13765/2024 Satwant Singh Sanghera v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr..

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner further asserted that the respondent has recovered the substantial amount of said demand from the amount of refund which became due to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that in the facts of the present case, not only the intimation/order that has been passed under Sec. 143(1) dtd. 7/6/2013 of the Act, of 1961 is liable to be set aside but the petitioner is also entitled for the refund of the amount which stands recovered from the petitioner.