Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, TDS-2(3) and Ors
[Citation -2019-LL-0715-52]

Citation 2019-LL-0715-52
Appellant Name Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd.
Respondent Name Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, TDS-2(3) and Ors.
Court HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 15/07/2019
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags deduction of tax at source • short deduction of tax • pending appeal • refund • tds • adjustment of refund
Bot Summary: The department insists that the Petitioner must deposit 20 of the disputed amount subject to which remaining recovery would be stayed. The case of the Petitioner is that for an earlier assessment year 1994-95, pursuant to the Judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the Petitioner has to receive sizeable amount of refund which far exceeds the 20 of the TDS demand. In a communication dated 3 rd May, 2019, the Petitioner conveyed to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and showed willingness for adjustment of the refund to the extent the TDS demand was being SSP 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 11:16:31 ::: 24 wp 1809 of 2019.doc pressed by the department. Learned Counsel Shri Chhotarary appearing for the Department stated on instructions that prima facie the Petitioner is correct in pointing out that in relation to the assessment for the assessment year 1994-95, the Petitioner has to receive certain refund. In the present case, when the Petitioner had showed willingness for adjustment of the part of the refund towards its ad-hoc TDS liable pending appeal, we see no reason why the department should not adjust the same and release the rest of the refund if otherwise payable. The Respondents shall act accordingly on such consent of the Petitioner, adjust to the extent necessary for meeting the requirement of 20 of the TDS demand out of the refund payable. We expect the department even otherwise to process the refund and release the balance if any that may become due and payable to the Petitioner.


IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1809 OF 2019 Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Petitioner versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS-2(3) and Ors. Respondents Mr. Madhur Agarwal I/by Mr. Atul Jasani, for Petitioner. Mr. P.C.Chhotaray, for Respondents. CORAM: AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE: 15th JULY, 2019 P.C.: 1. Petitioner is facing demand of short deduction of tax at source, for which Officer has passed order on 28 th March, 2019. Against this order, Petitioner has filed Appeal which is pending. Pending such appeal, department insists that Petitioner must deposit 20% of disputed amount subject to which remaining recovery would be stayed. case of Petitioner is that for earlier assessment year 1994-95, pursuant to Judgment of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Petitioner has to receive sizeable amount of refund which far exceeds 20% of TDS demand. In communication dated 3 rd May, 2019, Petitioner conveyed to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) and showed willingness for adjustment of refund to extent TDS demand (20% of full) was being SSP 1/2 ::: Uploaded on - 16/07/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 18/07/2019 11:16:31 ::: 24 wp 1809 of 2019.doc pressed by department. Since department did not accept this formula, this Petition has been filed. 2. Learned Counsel Shri Chhotarary appearing for Department stated on instructions that prima facie Petitioner is correct in pointing out that in relation to assessment for assessment year 1994-95, Petitioner has to receive certain refund. He however, submitted that unless directed by this Court, such refund cannot be adjusted against TDS demand. 3. In present case, when Petitioner had showed willingness for adjustment of part of refund towards its ad-hoc TDS liable pending appeal, we see no reason why department should not adjust same and release rest of refund if otherwise payable. Petitioner has already showed willingness for such adjustment under said letter dated 3 rd May, 2019. Respondents shall act accordingly on such consent of Petitioner, adjust to extent necessary for meeting requirement of 20% of TDS demand out of refund payable. This would comply with requirement of depositing 20% of TDS pending appeal to enjoy stay against further recovery. We expect department even otherwise to process refund and release balance if any that may become due and payable to Petitioner. 4. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. ( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ) ( AKIL KURESHI, J. ) SSP 2/2 Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, TDS-2(3) and Or
Report Error