$~30 to 32 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 9192/2023 INCREDIBLE UNIQUE BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prakul Khurana and Ms. Ishita Arora, Advocates.

versus OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12 1 NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC with Mr.

Apoorv Agarwal, JSC.

+ W.P.(C) 9297/2023 INCREDIBLE UNIQUE BUILDCON PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prakul Khurana and Ms. Ishita Arora, Advocates.

versus OFFICE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12 1 NEW DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC with Mr.

Apoorv Agarwal, JSC.

+ W.P.(C) 9343/2023 CM APPL. 35591/2023 STAY INCREDIBLE UNIQUE BUILDCON PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prakul Khurana and Ms. Ishita Arora, Advocates.

versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 12 (1) NEW DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC with Mr.

Apoorv Agarwal, JSC.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

O R D E R

% 19.01.2026

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the issue involved in the present petitions is squarely covered in petitioner’s favour by way of judgment dated 31.05.2023 passed in Writ Petition (C) 7797/2023.

2. Mr. Abhishek Maratha, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents is not in a position to dispute the aforesaid position of facts and law.

3. The relevant portion of the judgement dated 31.05.2023 passed in Writ Petition (C) 7797/2023 reads as under:-

“4. Mr Maratha cannot but accept that the issue raised in the present writ petition is covered by the judgment of this court dated 17.02.2023, passed in WP(C) 6610/2019, titled Sanjay Sudan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.

4.1 In this context, Mr Maratha says that a counter- affidavit is not required to be filed, as the instant writ petition concerns a pure question of law.

5. Broadly the facts obtaining the case are as follows:

6. This writ petition concerns Financial Year (FY)

2010-11[Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12].

7. The petitioner had, as it appears, provided services to an entity going by the name Clutch Auto Ltd. (CAL). The value of the service provided amounted to Rs.8,50,26,199/-. The said entity, i.e., CAL, deducted tax at source amounting to Rs.24,96,199/-. It is the petitioner’s stand that the tax at source deducted by CAL was not completely deposited with the respondent/revenue.

8. The petitioner also claims that the balance amount, after deducting tax at source, was also not remitted to it by CAL. Insofar as this aspect is concerned, the petitioner claims that it is an issue which is being agitated before the concerned bench of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).

9. We may note that according to the petitioner, CAL only deposited Rs.69,897/- towards tax deducted at source, resulting in a deficit of Rs.24,26,302/-. This aspect is not disputed by the respondent/revenue.

9.1 Therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is that it has not been given credit for the tax deducted at source by CAL, which was not deposited with the respondent/revenue.

10. The petitioner thus avers that instead of being granted credit for the tax deducted at source by CAL, a demand amounting to Rs.15,24,840/- was raised against it.

11. In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this court with the following substantive prayer:

“a) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/ order/ direction to the effect directing the Respondent to issue the refund amounting to Rs. 11,39,870 I- due to the Petitioner for AY 2011-12”

12. This very issue, as indicated above, arose for consideration in Sanjay Sudan’s case. It would, therefore, be appropriate to set forth the relevant paragraphs of the said judgment:

“7. According to us, Section 205 read with instruction dated 01.06.2015, clearly point in the direction that the deductee/assessee cannot be called upon to pay tax, which has been deducted at source from his income. The plain language of Sec