Delhi High Court - Orders
Shantanu Awasthi vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 67(1), Delhi & ... on 21 March, 2023
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
Bench: Rajiv Shakdher
$~26, 28 & 30
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 3518/2023
SHANTANU AWASTHI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Vinayak Shridhar Chitale,
Advocate.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 67(1), DELHI & ORS.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr Shivansh B. Pandya, Jr. Standing
Counsel with Mr Utkarsh Tiwari,
Advocate.
Mr Vinish Phoghat, SPC for
respondent no.3/UOI.
W.P.(C) 3545/2023
SIDDHARATH ARORA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Vinayak Shridhar Chitale,
Advocate.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 67 (1)- DELHI & ORS.
..... Respondent
Through: Mr Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel
with Mr Ashvini Kumar and Ms
Madhavi Shukla, Jr. Standing
Counsels.
W.P.(C) 3547/2023
ANKIT VIJ ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr Vinayak Shridhar Chitale,
Advocate.
versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Puneet Rai, Sr. Standing Counsel
with Mr Ashvini Kumar and Ms
Madhavi Shukla, Jr. Standing
Counsels.
Mr Krishna K. Sharma, SPC for
respondent no.3/UOI.
W.P.(C) 3518/2023 & connected writ petitions page 1 of 3
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ATUL
JAIN
Signing Date:28.03.2023
17:35:53
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
HON'BLE MS JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
ORDER
% 21.03.2023 [Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)] CM APPL. 13634/2023 in W.P.(C) 3518/2023 CM APPL. 13760/2023 in W.P.(C) 3545/2023 CM APPL. 13768/2023 in W.P.(C) 3547/2023
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions. W.P.(C) 3518/2023 and CM APPL. 13633/2023 W.P.(C) 3545/2023 and CM APPL. 13759/2023 W.P.(C) 3547/2023 and CM APPL. 13767/2023 [Applications filed on behalf of the petitioners seeking interim relief]
2. The petitioners in the above-captioned writ petitions were employees, at the relevant time, of respondent no.2 i.e., Karvy Stock Broking Ltd. (KSBL).
2.1. The petitioners‟ claim that, as employees of KSBL, they had received salary after deduction of tax at source. The petitioners are aggrieved by the fact that demand has been raised by the respondents/revenue, with regard to the tax which has already been deducted at source by KSBL i.e., the employer.
3. It appears that this very issue is covered by a judgment dated 07.02.2023 rendered in WP(C) 6610/2019, titled Sanjay Sudan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.
4. Issue notice.
W.P.(C) 3518/2023 & connected writ petitions page 2 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:28.03.2023 17:35:53 4.1 Mr Shivansh B. Pandya and Mr Vinish Phoghat accept notice on behalf of the respondent nos.1/revenue and respondent no.3. respectively in WP(C) 3518/2023.
4.2. Mr Puneet Rai accepts notice on behalf of the respondent no.1/revenue in WP(C) 3545/2023 and 3547/2023, while and Mr Krishna K. Sharma accepts notice on behalf of the respondent no.3/UOI in WP(C) 3547/2023.
5. Counter-affidavits will be filed within two weeks. 5.1 Rejoinder(s) thereto, if any, will be filed before the next date of hearing.
6. List the matters on 12.04.2023.
7. In the meanwhile, the operation of the following demand notices in each of the writ petitions shall remain stayed till further directions of the court:
Case No. Date of Demand Notice Assessment Year WP(C) 3518/2023 04.01.2021 2020-21 13.01.2021 2021-22 WP(C) 3545/2023 18.09.2022 2021-22 WP(C) 3547/2023 03.02.2022 2020-21 28.03.2022 2021-22
8. We also grant liberty to the petitioners to place on record additional material to show that tax was deducted at source for the relevant period by their employer i.e., KSBL.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J TARA VITASTA GANJU, J MARCH 21, 2023 / tr Click here to check corrigendum, if any W.P.(C) 3518/2023 & connected writ petitions page 3 of 3 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:ATUL JAIN Signing Date:28.03.2023 17:35:53