Court directs petitioner to reapply to Income Tax Department to rectify tax payment discrepancy caused by Bank's error.

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to submit an application with necessary enclosures to the Income Tax Department. The Department was instructed to review the application and pass orders within four weeks from receipt, addressing the discrepancy in tax payment records due to the Bank's failure to generate Form 26A. No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

---

---

Issues:
1. Mandamus sought to direct submission of Deduction of Tax at Source details in Form 26AS.
2. Discrepancy in tax payment records due to the absence of Form 26A generation by the Bank.
3. Resolution of the issue through a directive for the petitioner to approach the Income Tax Department with necessary application and enclosures.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a Mandamus to compel the second respondent Bank to submit the Deduction of Tax at Source details on the amount deposited by the petitioner in Term Deposit capital gain accounts. The petitioner emphasized the need to submit the details in Form 26AS to the Income Tax Department instead of the Manual Form 16A provided by the Bank. The petitioner specifically mentioned three accounts and the period of three years from 2008 to 2020 for which the tax details were sought. The petitioner highlighted the requirement for a certificate under Section 203AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 within a stipulated time frame.

During the hearing, it was revealed that the Bank had deducted tax from the petitioner's account but failed to generate Form 26A, leading to a discrepancy in the tax payment records maintained by the Income Tax Department. The senior standing counsel for the Income Tax Department acknowledged this discrepancy and advised the petitioner to approach the Department with an application enclosing the Manual Form 16A provided by the Bank. It was assured that upon submission of the required documents, the Department would consider the petitioner's claim and take appropriate action.

Considering the submissions made by the counsel for the Income Tax Department, the Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the petitioner to submit an application with necessary enclosures to the Department. The Department was instructed to review the application and pass orders within four weeks from receipt. No costs were imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed as a consequence of the judgment. The resolution of the issue through a directive for the petitioner to approach the Income Tax Department with the required documentation reflects a practical solution to address the discrepancy in the tax payment records and ensure proper consideration of the petitioner's claim within a specified timeline.

---