$~6 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 09.05.2025 + W.P.(C) 11727/2023 M/S KJP AND ASSOCIATES .....Petitioner Through: Mr Santanu Kanungo, Mr Sanjay Rohilla and Mr Sayantani, Advocates.

versus DEPUTY. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX .....Respondent Through: Mr Siddhartha Sinha, senior standing counsel.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA VIBHU BAKHRU, J. (ORAL

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that the income tax demand raised in respect of Assessment Year [AY] 2007-08 be deleted after taking into account the tax deducted at source [TDS] certificate (in Form 16A) which was furnished by the petitioner. The petitioner further prays that the directions be issued to the respondent to pass an order granting refund of tax due, after adjusting the TDS which was deducted in respect of payments received or accrued during financial year [FY] 2006-07, along with up to date interest.

2. The petitioner is a registered partnership firm and had filed its return of income for AY 2007-08 declaring a total income of ₹2,21,43,820/-. The Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed said return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] and an intimation dated 18.03.2009 was issued, whereby the TDS which was covered in the TDS certificate issued by Freudenberg Nok Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as Sigma Freudenberg NOK Pvt. Ltd.) was rejected. The details of the same, which were to be attached with the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act, were furnished to the petitioner on 09.06.2016. Thereafter, the petitioner, filed an application under Section 154 of the Act on 22.06.2016, for rectification of the error on record inasmuch as the credit for the TDS by Sigma Freudenberg NOK Pvt. Ltd. had not been accounted for. The petitioner’s request was not processed. Consequently, the petitioner sent a reminder dated 14.01.2018 requesting the Assessing Officer [AO] to pass an appropriate order. The petitioner did not receive any response to the said reminder as well.

3. Thereafter, on 10.01.2020, the AO issued a notice under Section 221(1) of the Act for recovery of the demand, which had arisen solely for the reason that the TDS certificate furnished by the petitioner had not been accounted for. The petitioner responded to the said notice by letters dated 14.02.2018 and 20.01.2020 and requested the AO to allow the credit for the TDS certificate. The record indicates that the AO sought verification of the deduction and deposit of TDS from the Sigma Freudenberg NOK Pvt. Ltd. – the entity that had deducted the TDS. Sigma Freudenberg NOK Pvt. Ltd. responded to the AO confirming that it had deducted TDS from payments made to the petitioner and had also deposited the same to the credit of the Government. We consider it apposite to set out the tabular statement set out Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed in the response of Sigma Freudenberg NOK Pvt. Ltd. and the same is reproduced below: