2021 (8) TMI 1092 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal grants appeal for TDS credit, emphasizes evidence importance.

The Tribunal allowed the appeal, directing the Assessing Officer to re-examine the Form 26AS and evidence submitted by the appellant. If confirmed that ... Rectification of mistake field u/s. 154 - credit of the TDS was not claimed in return of income because of non-appearance in the Form 26AS at the time of filing return of income, however knowing the correct situation, the appellant filed an application for rectification of mistake online - TDS certificates in the name of Joint Venture partner or Director - HELD THAT:- We conquer with the argument of the Ld. A.R. that at the time of filing of original return u/s. 139 the payment of TDS was not reflected in Form 26AS as deductor had not remitted the same in the Government account and as evident from the record and from Form 26AS M/s Aditya Coke Pvt. Ltd. had remitted TDS of ₹ 12,41,617/- on 24/03/2013. The Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of CIT vs. Bhooratnam & Co.. [2013 (1) TMI 478 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT] wherein it is held that “ the revenue cannot be allowed to retain tax deducted at source without credit being available to anybody, if credit is not allowed to the assessee, and the joint venture has not filed return of income, then credit of the TDS cannot be taken by anybody. This is not the spirit and intention of law. Therefore, in our view, the Assessing Officer erred in denying the benefit of the TDS mentioned in the TDS certificates filed by the assessee on the ground that the TDS certificate is issued in the name of the joint venture or a director and not the assessee”. CBDT has also vide instruction No. 5/2013 dated 08/07/2013 even in the cases of mismatch of TDS directed to give credit of TDS when the assessee furnishes the TDS certificate. - In the present case, the appellant furnished the TDS certificate and at the time of filing of original return could not file because M/s Aditya Coke Pvt. Ltd. remitted the TDS in the Government account on 24/03/2013. Therefore same was not reflecting at the time of filing of return. We set aside this matter back to the tile of the Assessing Officer examine the Form 26AS and other details have been submitted by the appellant before the lower authorities and if it is found that M/s Aditya Coke Pvt. Ltd. has remitted the TDS of ₹ 12,41,617/- in the Government account then will give benefit of the same to the assessee.Appeal filed by Assessee is allowed. Issues Involved:- Rectification of mistake under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding TDS credit claim.Detailed Analysis:Issue 1: Rectification of Mistake under Section 154The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT(A)) confirming the rejection of the appellant's application for rectification of mistake under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant had not claimed credit of TDS of Rs. 12,40,870/- deducted by M/s. Aditya Coke Pvt. Ltd. initially as it was not reflected in Form 26AS. However, it was later discovered that the TDS had been paid, and the income corresponding to it was shown in the books. The appellant filed for rectification, but it was rejected by the Assessing Officer (AO) on the grounds that no credit of TDS was claimed in the return of income or in a revised return. The appellant argued that the TDS was legitimate, supported by the corresponding income in the profit and loss account. The AO rejected the rectification application without considering the evidence provided by the appellant.Issue 2: Claim for TDS CreditThe appellant, engaged in trading, had professional service fees from M/s. Aditya Coke Pvt. Ltd., leading to TDS of Rs. 12,40,875/- as per section 194J. The TDS was not initially claimed in the return due to the deductor's delay in remittance, which was later rectified. The appellant's claim for TDS credit was supported by evidence of the deductor's remittance on 24.03.2013. The appellant approached the Tribunal seeking direction for a refund of the TDS amount. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant's argument that the TDS was not reflected in Form 26AS at the time of filing the original return but was later remitted by the deductor, making the credit legitimate.Conclusion:The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for re-examination of Form 26AS and other details submitted by the appellant. If it is confirmed that M/s. Aditya Coke Pvt. Ltd. remitted the TDS amount in the Government account, the benefit of the credit should be given to the assessee. The judgment emphasized the importance of allowing TDS credit when supported by evidence, in line with legal precedents and CBDT instructions.