VENKATACHALAM THANGAVELU vs ITO, WARD 70(1), DELHI

Judgment text excerpt

$~1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision:-20th January, 2026. + W.P.(C) 538/2026 & CM APPL. 2707/2026, CM APPL. 2708/2026 VENKATACHALAM THANGAVELU .....Petitioner Through: Ms Rano Jain and Mr. Venketesh Chaurasia, Advocates. versus ITO, WARD 70(1), DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC with Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSC. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR JUDGMENT DINESH MEHTA, J. (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by way of intimation dated 07.06.2013 under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961’), a demand of Rs.12,28,508/- 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/- was not given. 2. It is contended that the issue involved in the present writ petition is squarely covered by a judgment dated 01.10.2024 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 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 538/2026 Page 1 of 3 By:NAVEEN KUMAR Signing Date:21.01.2026 15:23:17 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 Section 143(1) dated 07.06.2013 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. 4. Mr. Agarwal, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent was not in a position to