Assessee gets TDS credit where deductor misreported PAN in another firm's name; Section 199 and Rule 37BA apply
ITAT MUMBAI - AT allowed the appeal and directed the AO to grant TDS credit to the assessee company for tax deducted erroneously in the PAN of an erstwhile partnership firm. The tribunal held the income was taxed in the assessee's hands, the partnership firm had not and could not claim the credit, and the Revenue had received the tax; denying credit due to deductor's reporting error would cause impermissible double taxation and contravene Section 199 and Rule 37BA. Granting credit is subject to verification that the partnership firm has not claimed the amount.
ISSUES PRESENTED AND CONSIDERED
1. Whether an assessee is entitled to credit of tax deducted at source (TDS) where the income corresponding to such TDS has been offered to tax and assessed in the assessee's hands but the deductor erroneously reported the TDS against another person's PAN and the credit is not reflected in the assessee's Form 26AS.
2. Whether Section 199(1) read with Rule 37BA permits granting TDS credit to the person in whose hands the income is assessable despite non-compliance by the deductor with reporting formalities, and what procedural steps (if any) the assessing authority must take before granting such credit.
ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS
Issue 1 - Entitlement to TDS credit where income is taxed in assessee's hands but TDS is reported against another PAN
Legal framework: Section 199(1) treats tax deducted and paid to the Government as payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income such deduction is made. Rule 37BA(2) provides procedure for credit where income is assessable in the hands of a person other than the deductee, requiring declaration by the deductee to the deductor and reporting by the deductor in TDS statements.
Precedent treatment: The judgment relies on the principle in Court on Its Own Motion v. CIT that denial of credit due to deductor's mismatch causes unjust harassment and that assessing officers have powers under Section 133 and 154 to verify and secure correct reporting. A Coordinate Bench decision harmonising Section 199 with Rule 37BA has held that TDS credit should follow the income and not be defeated by procedural mismatches.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court emphasises substance over form: where the income has been accounted for and offered to tax by the assessee, and the purported deductee has neither carried on business nor claimed the credit, the tax deducted must, in principle, be treated as payment on behalf of the assessee under Section 199(1). Rule 37BA's object is to ensure that credit follows the income; procedural formalities are facilitatory and do not alter the substantive entitlement where facts show the tax corresponds to assessee's taxed income. Denial of credit solely on the ground of absence from Form 26AS would result in double taxation and frustrate the legislative purpose of TDS provisions.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Where income is assessable in the hands of the assessee and the tax has in fact been deducted and deposited, denial of TDS credit solely due to the deductor's erroneous PAN reporting is impermissible; credit should be granted subject to verification that the deductee has not and will not claim the credit. Obiter - Observations on the hardship to small taxpayers and the need for proactive steps by Revenue, while persuasive, are ancillary to the holding.
Conclusion: The assessee is entitled to TDS credit of the disputed amount where the income was offered and taxed in its hands and the deductee did not claim the credit; withholding credit due to deductor's reporting error is contrary to Section 199, Rule 37BA, and the scheme of the Act.
Issue 2 - Role of Rule 37BA and procedural obligations of deductor and assessing authority
Legal framework: Rule 37BA prescribes that where tax is deducted on income assessable in hands of a person other than the deductee, credit shall be given to that other person subject to the deductee furnishing a declaration to the deductor and the deductor reporting the declaration in its TDS statements. Sections 133 and 154 permit the assessing authority to require information, verification, and rectification.
Precedent treatment: The High Court decision cited held that Assessing Officers possess powers to issue notices to deductors to secure correct details and that perfunctory correspondence by Revenue is insufficient. The Tribunal decision (Reliance Infrastructure) read Rule 37BA purposively to ensure credit follows income rather than being nullified by formal mismatches.
Interpretation and reasoning: The Court construes Rule 37BA as procedural rather than creating an absolute bar to credit in all cases of non-reporting by the deductor. Where the factual matrix establishes that the tax was deducted and deposited, the income was taxed in the assessee's hands, and the deductee has not claimed the credit, the Assessing Officer must use statutory powers (e.g., enquiries under Section 133) to verify deduction and deposition and, upon satisfaction, grant credit. Requiring the assessee to bear the burden of securing rectification from third-party deductors would unfairly penalise the taxpayer and frustrate the rule's substantive purpose.
Ratio vs. Obiter: Ratio - Rule 37BA's procedural requisites do not preclude the assessing authority from granting credit when the assessing authority can verify that (i) the tax was deducted and deposited; (ii) the income was assessed in the assessee's hands; and (iii) the deductee has not claimed the credit. The assessing authority should employ statutory powers to secure necessary verification rather than mechanically denying credit for non-reflection in Form 26AS. Obiter - Specific guidance on the manner and sequence of enquiries to be made by assessing officers is illustrative rather than prescriptive.
Conclusion: The assessing authority is obliged to verify the reality of deduction and deposition and the absence of claim by the deductee, and upon satisfaction, must grant TDS credit even if the deductor has not reported the deduction against the assessee's PAN, rather than adopt a rigid, form-over-substance approach.
Cross-References and Application to Present Facts
Where the income was recorded and offered to tax by the assessee, the purported deductee (a dormant partnership) did not claim the TDS, and tax was received by the Revenue, the Court directed grant of TDS credit subject to verification that the deductee had not claimed the amount - applying Section 199(1) and Rule 37BA purposively and following precedents that protect taxpayers from being prejudiced by deductor's errors.
Final Conclusion
The appeal is allowed on the basis that the assessee is entitled to the TDS credit claimed, and the Assessing Officer is directed to grant the credit after verifying that the deductee has not claimed the said TDS; denial solely for absence from Form 26AS is inconsistent with Section 199, Rule 37BA, and established judicial pronouncements preventing double taxation and unjust harassment of taxpayers.
TaxTMI 
AI Drafter ✕
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
