$~44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010178962026 + W.P.(C) 5682/2026, CM APPL. 27962/2026 & CM APPL. 34830/2026 BALJINDER CHATHA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Paras Jindal, Advocate for Mr. Nikhil Goyal, Advocate through VC. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Agarwal, SSC with Ms. Monica Benjamin, Mr. Gibran Naushad, JSCs, Mr. Adeeb Ahmad, Ms. Harshita Sharma, Mr. Laiba Arif and Ms. Prerika Narang, Advocates. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA O R D E R % 21.08.2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that for the Assessment Years 2010- 11, 2011-12, and 2012-13 demands of Rs. 6,91,980 - Ref No. 20112010100009903451), Rs. 9,58,020/ - (Ref No. 2012201110022268620T), Rs. 17,51,470/- (Ref No. 2013201237055566866T) including interest have been raised by way of intimations dated 09.04.2011, 04.03.2013, and 27.02.2014 under Sections 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1961') against the petitioner because the credit of TDS which Kingfisher Airlines (erstwhile employer) had deducted from the salary of the petitioner This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/08/2026 at 10:55:50 amounting to Rs. 6,71,951/- for AY 2010-11, Rs. 7,36,042/- for AY 2011-12, and Rs. 13,82,396/- for AY 2012-13 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. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further asserted that the Respondent has recovered the amounts of Rs. 6,504/-, Rs. 10,170/- and Rs. 420/- arising from refunds which were due to Petitioner for AYs 2017-18, 2020-21 & 2025-26 respectively, by adjusting the said refund amounts against the aforesaid demand raised for AY 2010-11. Learned Counsel submitted that in the facts of the present case, not only the intimations/orders that has been passed under Section 143(1) dated 09.04.2011, 04.03.2013, and 27.02.2014 of the Act of 1961 are liable to be set aside, but the Petitioner is also entitled to the refund of the amount which stands recovered from the Petitioner. 4. Ms. Benjamin, Junior Standing Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the Respondent Department has already passed a stay order dated 24.04.2026 thereby staying the recovery of demands from the Petitioner, of Rs. 6,41,595/- for AY 2010-11, Rs. 9,58,020/- for AY 2011-12 and Rs. 17,51,470/- for AY 2012-13. Furthermore, she submitted that the deductor Kingfisher Airlines Ltd. had also deposited TDS deducted for AY 2010-11 as reflected in Form 26AS. Accordingly, the Department is in the process of issuing the refund for AY 2010-11 and the consequential grant of TDS credit for the same. 5. Heard learned Counsel for the Parties. 6. Adverting to the merits of the case, we are of the view that the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/08/2026 at 10:55:50 Respondent could perhaps have been justified in disallowing the amount of TDS which was collected by Kingfisher Airlines from the Petitioner's salary, as the same was not deposited by said deductor but the Petitioner cannot be blamed for that and deprived of his legitimate right, as has been held by this Court in its judgement Satwant Singh Sanghera (supra). 7. We therefore allow the writ petition and quash and set aside the intimations dated 09.04.2011, 04.03.2013, and 27.02.2014 for AY's 2010-11, 2011-12, and 2012- 13, respectively, to the extent they relate to the non-grant of credit of Tax Deducted at Source by the Kingfisher Airlines. The consequential demand and the recovery made from Petitioner's refund is also declared illegal. Furthermore, the Department is directed to process refund and TDS credit for AY 2010-11 within 2 weeks. The Respondent is directed to refund the amount recovered from the Petitioner along with applicable interest under Section 244(1) and 244(1)(A) of the Act of 1961, within a period of three months from today. It shall be required of the Respondent to ensure that the applicable amount is paid to the Petitioner. 8. Needless to observe that our order shall confine to the amounts which have been deducted by the Kingfisher Airlines and in case there is any other demand raised by the Assessing Officer, the same shall not be effected. 9. The instant petition, alongwith pending applications, stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. DINESH MEHTA, J. RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. AUGUST 21, 2026/MR This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/08/2026 at 10:55:50