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 TDS was remitted by M/s. Aditya Coke Pvt. Ltd., the appellant should receive the credit. The decision stressed the significance of granting TDS credit when substantiated by evidence, aligning with legal precedents and CBDT guidelines.

---

---

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 154
The 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 Credit
The 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.

---