Samir Kumar De Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata)
Kolkata ITAT: TDS Appearing in Deductee’s Form 26AS Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Income Is Clubbed in Spouse’s Hands
Summary: The Kolkata SMC Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, comprising Shri Yogesh Kumar US, Judicial Member and Shri Rakesh Mishra, Accountant Member, partly allowed the assessee’s appeal for statistical purposes for Assessment Year 2020-21 and remanded the TDS credit issue to the Addl/JCIT(A)-2, Lucknow. The assessee, a senior citizen having salary and bank-interest income, had filed his return declaring total income of ₹30,95,050/-. TDS of ₹79,330/- deducted by State Bank of India on interest from a fixed deposit was reflected in his Form 26AS, but the corresponding interest income had not been offered in his return and was stated to have been clubbed in the hands of his wife under section 64 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer denied the TDS credit in a rectification order under section 154, and the Addl/JCIT(A) confirmed the denial on the ground that the declaration and deductor certificate contemplated by Rule 37BA(2) had not been furnished and there was no proof regarding the corresponding income being declared in the spouse’s return. The Tribunal examined section 199 and Rule 37BA and observed that Rule 37BA(1) provides credit to the deductee on the basis of the information furnished by the deductor, while Rule 37BA(2)(i) permits credit to another person where the income is assessable in that person’s hands subject to the proviso requiring the deductee to file a declaration with the deductor and the deductor to report the TDS in the other person’s name. Since the TDS continued to be reflected in the assessee’s Form 26AS, the Tribunal observed that no such declaration appeared to have been filed and held that the issue was consequently governed by Rule 37BA(1). The Tribunal further held that, as the TDS credit was reflected in the assessee’s Form 26AS but had not been granted, the matter involved a mistake apparent from the record liable to rectification, while observing that the lower appellate authority had not analysed section 199 and Rule 37BA in the right perspective. The order of the Addl/JCIT(A) was therefore set aside and the matter was remanded for decision in accordance with law. However, the Tribunal noted a discrepancy between the assessee’s claim of ₹79,330/- and the TDS of ₹67,112/- stated in the Addl/JCIT(A)’s order against interest of ₹6,71,096/- allowed by SBI, and accordingly directed the Addl/JCIT(A) to decide the issue on the correct factual amount and applicable law. Ground Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 were allowed, Ground No. 2 was partly allowed for statistical purposes, and the other grounds were also partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the appeal ultimately being partly allowed for statistical purposes.
