TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 758
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act] for A.Y. 2015-16.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Central Circle-1, Jalandhar,(in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 154 of the Act date of order 26.02.2021. The assessee took the following grounds which are extracted as below: "1 The Order of the Ld. CIT(A) - 5, Ludhiana confirming the Order of the A.O. is against law and facts of the case. 2 That the Ld. C.I.T.(A) has erred in not allowing the TDS credit amounting to Rs. 1,71,585/- which was made by the tenant 'Vasan Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.' whose rental income stands duly shown and assessed by the Deptt. and for which application u/s 154 was made to the A.O. who had rejected the claim on erroneous grounds. 3 Tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has confirmed the observation of the ld. AO and rejected the appeal of the assessee. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted the written submission and argued that the assessee has offered the rental income in the computation of total income. The copy of the computation is annexed in APB page nos. 1 &2. The TDS was accordingly claimed in relation to the rental income. The assessee further submitted that a rectification petition was also submitted before the ld. AO for claiming of the TDS and the ledger of the party as proof of the deduction of TDS is also submitted in APB page no. 9. The assessee had claimed that the assessee is eligible for this benefit u/s 205 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax 278 ITR 206 (Karn). The observation of the Hon'ble High Court in page 16 para no. 2 is reproduced as under: "2. The assessee had responded to the notice, pointing out that the demands for the years 1999-2000 to 2001-02 were not correct or justified; that the said demand included even the amounts that had been deducted by her tenant, one M/s Krisen Development Corporation, who had taken the property belonging to the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs 1,35,000; that the said tenant had punctually deducted 20 per cent of the rent amount in terms of Section 194-I of the Act by remitting the rent less 20 per cent to the petitioner every month, but, in fact, had not issued the corresponding deduction certificate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted from the income, the assessee shall not be called upon to pay the tax himself/herself to such extent. That means what the section provides for is to put an embargo or prohibition from raising a demand on the assessee in respect of the amount, which was deductible and actually deducted to the extent it has been deducted. The section by itself does not say that the amount should also be paid to the Central Government. There is no doubt that such an obligation is cast on the person responsible namely, the person who has deducted the amount and the Act also provides for initiation of proceedings against the person on his/her failure to do so, right upto the prosecution of the person for recovery of the amount with interest. The condition of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... as under: 9. Even otherwise Section 205 of the Act is very crystal clear in its intention and clarifies that where tax stands deducted at source the assessee shall not be called upon to pay the tax himself to the extent to which tax has been deducted from the income. In the case in hand as noticed above, the deduction of tax from the salary of assessee is not disputed and Government's claim of TDS stands satisfied under CRP and cannot be said to be still outstanding so as to deny its credit to the assessee. 5. The ld. CIT. DR vehemently argued and mentioned that the amount was not credited in the 26AS, so, the assessee is not eligible for claim of TDS. 6. We heard the rival submission and relied on the documents available on the recor....