2013 (10) TMI 100 - HC - Income Tax

High Court orders grant of TDS credit after quashing tax commissioner's refusal

The High Court quashed the impugned order by the Commissioner of Income Tax, directing the department to grant credit for the TDS that was not initially ... Revised return - whether filing of revised return after receipt of intimation u/s 143(1)(a) is invalid - Credit of TDS not claimed in the original return - As soon as the petitioner assessee came to know that there was a mistake in not claiming credit of the TDS on receiving the intimation under Section 143(1) dated 7.1.2011 immediately within a period of two months – The same was not accepted by Revenue – Thereafter revision application u/s 264 was also rejected on the ground of filing of original return beyond the period of limitation – Held that:- Intimation order under Section 143(1)(a) cannot be treated to be an order of assessment. In that case, it was open for the assessee to submit the revised return at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year. As the revised return submitted by the assessee is within the prescribed period of limitation as provided under subsection (5) of Section 139, it cannot be said that revised return submitted by the petitionerassessee was not within the limitation period. Particulars of TDS deposit are mentioned in form no.26(AS) - The department has taken too technical view and as such not justified in not giving the credit of TDS already deposited with the department, the particulars of which are mentioned in Form No.26(AS) - Petition is to be allowed by directing concerned respondent to give credit and / or refund the TDS already deducted – Decided in favor of Assessee. Issues:1. Quashing of impugned order dated 14.2.2013 by the Commissioner of Income Tax, III, Ahmedabad.2. Granting credit for TDS on verification of Form No.26(AS).Analysis:Issue 1: Quashing of Impugned OrderThe petitioner, an assessee, filed a return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 but failed to claim TDS of Rs. 29,326 in the original return. Upon receiving an intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, it was discovered that no credit for TDS was granted. Consequently, a revised return was submitted, along with an application under Section 264 of the Act for a refund due to a bona fide error. However, the Commissioner dismissed the revision under Section 264 mainly due to the original return being belated and the revised return being considered nonest. The petitioner challenged this decision through a Special Civil Application.Issue 2: Granting Credit for TDSThe petitioner argued that the impugned order was erroneous as credit for TDS and the subsequent refund were not granted, despite the TDS details being available with the revenue authorities. It was contended that the revised return was submitted within the prescribed period of limitation, and therefore, the authority should have accepted it and granted the credit/refund. The department did not dispute the TDS deduction but claimed that both the original and revised returns were beyond the prescribed time limits, hence not valid.The High Court noted that the petitioner had indeed deducted TDS but failed to claim credit for it initially. Upon realizing the oversight, the petitioner promptly submitted a revised return within the statutory period. The Court held that the revised return was valid under Section 139(5) of the Act, allowing for corrections within the specified time frame. It was emphasized that the department's refusal to grant credit for the TDS already deposited was unjustified and too technical. Therefore, the Court directed the concerned respondent to provide the credit/refund for the TDS as per the details in Form No.26(AS) submitted with the petition.In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned order, and directed the department to grant credit for the TDS already deposited. No costs were awarded in the case.