(DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)

1. These proceedings have been instituted by the Petitioner in person. During the course of the hearing, we have requested Mr.Jamshed Mistri, Learned Senior Advocate to assist the Court as amicus curiae. Counsel has very fairly placed all the facts and circumstances of the case so as to facilitate the Court to dispose of these proceedings.

2. The Petitioner was a Judicial Officer in the State Judicial Service and was working at Radhanagari in the revenue District of Kolhapur and at Manmad in the revenue District of Nashik in his capacity as a Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, and as a Judicial Magistrate, First Class respectively. The Petitioner initially filed a return of Income for Assessment Year 2006-07 in which he returned a total income of Rs.1,79,664/. The return showed an amount of Rs.17,500/as tax paid during the previous year. The Petitioner claimed a refund of Rs.16,615/. The Petitioner furnished Form 16, but it was self attested instead of being attested by the employer. The Assessing Officer issued an intimation under Section 143(1) on 15 December 2006 in which he reflected the total returned income at Rs.1,42,540/. No credit was given for tax deducted at source in the amount of Rs.17,500/possibly because Form 16 was not attested by the employer. On this basis, the Assessing Officer made a demand of tax in the amount of Rs.4339/. The Petitioner submitted an application for rectification on 24 January 2007 in which he stated that the income had been wrongly computed at Rs.1,42,540/instead of Rs. 1,79,664/. The Petitioner also submitted that the tax deducted at source had not been considered as a result of which the demand of Rs.4,339/was, according to him, erroneous. On the very same day, i.e. on 24 January 2007, the Assessing Officer issued a notice to show cause to the Petitioner in which he recomputed the returned income at Rs.1,44,935/. On 24 January 2007, the Assessing Officer issued a rectification under Section 154 by which he recomputed the income at Rs.1,79,660/. Again no credit for tax deducted at source was furnished and a total demand was made in the amount of Rs.8,219/. The total tax payable was computed at Rs.12,558/and it was after giving a credit to the demand of Rs.4,339/raised as per the earlier order that a net demand of Rs.8,219/was made. On 11 September 2008, a notice was issued to the Petitioner stating that there was an outstanding of Rs.12,558/.

3. The Petitioner submitted a query under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in which on 23 April 2008, the Income Tax Officer, TDSII, Nashik, has stated that the total amount of tax paid for financial year 2005-06 stands at Rs.17,500/. The Petitioner has also annexed to these proceedings a copy of a statement signed by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, stating that Rs.17,500/was the income tax deducted. On 20 September 2010, the Income Tax Officer, Ward4, Palghar has issued a notice to the Petitioner for nonpayment of a total amount of Rs.12,558/for Assessment Year 2006-07.

4. A perusal of the record of the present case would indicate that the Petitioner had furnished Form 16, but as against the requirement of law, the form was self attested. Be that as it may, it now appears prima facie from the reply received by the Petitioner to his query under the Right to Information Act, 2005 that a total amount of Rs.17,500/had been paid towards taxes for financial year 2005-06. In view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in YashpalSahni vs. Rekha Hajarnavis, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, (2007) 293 ITR 539 (Bom) the position in law is that a complete machinery is provided under the Act for recovery of tax deducted at source from the person who has deducted such tax at source and the Revenue is barred from recovering the amount from the person from whose income the tax had been deducted at source. In the present case, it appears that the Petitioner was at