SANKARANARAYANAN RAJSHEKAR Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mrs.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned Senior Standing Counsel takes notice for the respondents. By consent of the parties, the main writ petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage itself.

(2.) The challenge made in this writ petition is against an intimation issued to the petitioner under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 22.02.2011. Since this writ petition is being disposed of at the time of admission stage itself without affecting the interest of either parties, notice to the third respondent is dispensed with.

(3.) The case of the petitioner in short is follows :- He was working as a Pilot under the third respondent. In respect of the Assessment Year 2009-10, the petitioner received salary from the third respondent after making tax deduction. The third respondent failed to pay the deducted at source on the salary of the petitioner to the credit of the Revenue. While that being so, the first respondent while processing the return filed by the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2009-10 raised a demand of Rs.6,15,340/- which is nothing but tax already deducted from the petitioner's salary by the third respondent. Therefore, it is stated that the first respondent is not entitled to make such demand against the salary of the petitioner, as it is for them to recover such tax deducted at source from the third respondent, who had already deducted such tax from the salary of the petitioner.