Gayatri Snehal Rao v. ITO (2024) 168 taxmann.com 466 / (2025) 343 CTR 696 / 248 DTR 29 (Guj)(HC) Shobhan Shantilal Doshi v.ITO 168 taxmann.com 466 / (2025) 343 CTR 696 / 248 DTR 29 (Guj)(HC)

S. 205 : Deduction at source-Bar against direct demand-Employer failed to deposit TDS deducted from salary-Demand cannot be raised against employee-Directions to CBDT to harassment in future-Technology/software must be rectified. [S. 119, 192, Art. 226]

In this case, the employer deducted tax at source from the assessee’s salary for two years but failed to deposit it with the Government. The Department raised demand on the assessee on account of mismatch in the system. The Court held that in view of S. 205 and CBDT Instruction No. 275 dt.1-6-2015 and Office Memorandum dt.11-3-2016  no demand can be enforced against the employee where tax is deducted but not deposited by the employer. The Court criticized the reliance on faulty software systems which ignored statutory provisions and binding CBDT instructions. Directions were issued to rectify the software to prevent such harassment in future. The demand raised was quashed. (AY.2020-21,  2021-22)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*