TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (5) TMI 154
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Karvy Stock Broking Limited u/s. 192 of the Act, contending that Form 26AS does contains the details of TDS of Rs. 13,50,000/- and finally raised a demand of Rs. 14,17,500/-. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the First Appellate Authority. 4. Learned First Appellate Authority considering the facts of the case, dismissed the appeal of assessee, but simultaneously gave a direction to the jurisdictional AO to treat the assessee as not in default of taxes for the entire sum covered under TDS non-remittance, in accordance with the CBDT instruction No. 05/2013 dated 08/07/2013 and CBDT Press release dated 11/03/2016. 5. Aggrieved by the said order of the first appellate authority, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. At the time of hearing, learned AR submitted that the entire tax demand of Rs. 14,17,501/- has arisen due to the fact that the employer of the assessee i.e. M/s Karvy Stock Broking Limited has not deposited TDS of Rs. 13,50,000/-, deducted from the salary paid to the assessee and in the absence of TDS getting reflected in form 26AS, the CPC erred in not granting TDS credit, while there is no fault on the-part of the assessee. It was submitted that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Delhi High Court in the case of Harshdip Singh Dhillon vs. Union of India (supra), wherein the Hon'ble High Court decided the issue as under: ".......... 7. On behalf of the Revenue, it was also contended that the petitioner cannot be allowed credit of tax because the credit has to be given in view of section 199 of the Act only when the tax deducted at source is paid to the Central Government, which admittedly was not so paid in this case. This contention was raised also in the case of Sanjay Sudan 1 but not accepted by this court. 8. Further, in the case of BDR Finvest Pvt. Ltd. v. Dy. CIT 2 , W. P. (C) No. 9043 of 2021 decided by this court on October 31, 2023, it was clarified that payment of the tax deducted at source to the Central Government has to be understood as the payment in accordance with law. 9. As held by this court in the case of Chintan Bindra v. Dy. CIT 3 , the petitioner, having accepted the salary after deduction of Income-tax at source, had no further control over it in the sense that thereafter it was the duty of his employer, acting as tax collecting agent of the Revenue under Chapter XVII of the Act, to pay the deducted tax amount to the Centra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m April 1, 1971), and the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 (with effect from April 1, 1989), respectively. 7.5 Part F concerns interest chargeable in certain cases. Lastly, Part G provides for provisions for the levy of fees in certain cases. 8. As would be evident, Chapter XVII of the Act puts in place a legislative scheme for the collection of taxes by various modes, which includes direct levy (see section 191), deduction of tax at source, or collection at source. 8.1 Sections 192 to 195 and 196A to 1960 provide for the deduction of tax at source for payments made under various heads. For instance, payments made by way of salary, interest on securities, dividends, and interest (other than interest on securities), winnings from lotteries or crossword puzzle, and winnings from horse race are amenable to deduction of tax at source under sections 192, 193, 194, 194A, 1948 and 19488, respectively. 8.2 Likewise, payments made to contractors and insurance commission, payments made in respect of life insurance policy, and payments made to the non-resident. sportsmen or sports associations are liable for deduction of tax at source under sections 194C, 1940, 1940A, and 194E, r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Act, would have a statutory charge created on his assets concerning both the tax as well as the interest payable under sub-section (1A) of the said provision. 10. Thus, in our opinion, the Act does not seem to cast a burden on the deductee-payee with regard to the deposit of money, which is retained as tax, by the payer, i. e., the deductor. Therefore, in so far as the deductee-payee is concerned, once the payer-deductor, who acts as an agent of the Central Government, has retained money towards tax, credit for the same cannot be denied, having regard to the consequences and the modes available for recovering the said amount from the payer-deductor. 11. In this particular case, the deductors are individuals who, concededly, after retaining the tax deducted at source did not fully deposit the same, as noted above, with the Central Government. 12. Upon the respondent-assessee becoming aware of this fact, a police complaint was lodged, which was brought to the notice of the appellant-Revenue. Despite this aspect being brought to the notice of the appellant-Revenue, no steps were taken either under the provisions of the Act or under the common law for recovery or even under ....