2026 (2) TMI 712

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rrect outstanding demand of Rs. 1,34,08,390/- in relation to tax deducted at source (for short 'TDS') for the Financial Year 2007-08 (Assessment Year 2008-09) and to grant a refund of Rs. 1,48,11,740/- paid by the Petitioner under protest, along with applicable interest. 3. The brief facts are that the Petitioner, a banking company, duly deducted tax at source (TDS) for the Financial Year 2007-08 and deposited the same by tendering cheques to its authorised banker, the State Bank of India (Respondent No. 5), within the statutory due dates. However, the Online Tax Accounting System (for short 'OLTAS') maintained by the Respondents recorded the date of payment as the date of cheque realisation, which was subsequent to the due date. This mi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... cannot be corrected but suggested that the Assessing Officer "explore the possibility of granting credit to the taxpayer through manual TDS credit". However, Respondent No. 1, in an email dated 26.12.2024, stated that "no such functionality is available on TRACES portal at the level of AO". This deadlock has persisted for years, causing immense prejudice to the Petitioner. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner argued that despite multiple representations and providing all necessary evidence, including a certificate from the bank, the Respondents have failed to correct the error. He submitted that the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, CPC-TDS, and the DG (Systems) have all highlighted that the system does not permit such a ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s, when the date of tendering the cheque is considered as the date of payment of TDS, then there is no delay in payment of TDS, and consequently, no liability on account of interest for delayed payment can arise. 11. Thus, the Petitioner's grievances are entirely justified. This, in fact, is not even disputed by the Respondents. Naturally, the demand of Rs. 1,34,08,390/- is patently incorrect and consequently, the Petitioner's entitlement to the refund of Rs. 1,48,11,740/-, which was paid under protest against this incorrect demand, is also justified. 12. We are dismayed to note that this is yet another case where a taxpayer is being denied legitimate relief due to the rigidities of the Department's online system. This Cou....