Avni Dogra v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors

O R D E R %

19.08.2026

¶1Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by way of intimation dated 21.01.2022 under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1961'), a demand of Rs.19,06,310/- was raised against the petitioner because the credit of TDS which Kingfisher Airlines (erstwhile employer) had deducted from the salary of the petitioner amounting to Rs.14,65,787/- was not given.

¶2It 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. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶3Mr.Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent was not in a position to dispute the position of facts and law as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner. He however submitted that the jurisdiction of filing the writ petition is at Bangalore and not in Delhi, because the assessee's Assessing Authority has not shifted to Bangalore.

¶4In response to the preliminary objection, which Mr.Puneet Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel has raised, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the petitioner filed a writ petition on

17.04.2026, he was resident and assessee in Delhi. However, later, pursuant to the request of the petitioner, who has recently moved to Bangalore, his assessing officer has changed to Bangalore.

¶5Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6So far as preliminary objection raised by Mr.Puneet Rai is concerned, we do not find any substance in the same, because when the assessee had filed return for the Assessment Year (2011-12), admittedly, the petitioner's assessing authority was at Delhi.

¶7That apart the day when the petition came to be filed, the Assessing Authority of the petitioner was at Delhi. Merely because subsequently, it has changed to Bangalore, he cannot be non-suited on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

¶8Adverting to the merit of the case, we are of the view that the respondent could perhaps 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 judgment Satwant Singh Sanghera (supra). The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

¶9We therefore allow the writ petition and quash and set aside the intimation dated 21.01.2022 to the extent it relates to the non-grant of credit of Tax Deducted at Source by the Kingfisher Airlines.

¶10Needless to observe that our order shall confine to the amount which has 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.

¶11The instant petition, alongwith pending applications, stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

DINESH MEHTA, J.

RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, J. AUGUST 19, 2026/ neelam The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010176952026 + W.P.(C) 5630/2026, CM APPL. 27598/2026, CM APPL. 35040/2026 AVNI DOGRA .....Petitioner Through: Mr.Nikhil Goyal, Adv. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr.Puneet Rai, SSC, with Mr.Rishabh Nangia, JSC and Mr.Ashvini Kumar, Mr. Nikhil Jain and Ms. Nancy Jain, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA