Case Law Details
In our view, though Form 26AS (r/w r.3 1AB and ss. 203AA and 206C(5)) represents a part of a wholesome procedure designed by the Revenue for accounting of TDS (and TCS), the burden of proving as to why the said Form (Statement) does not reflect the details of the entire tax deducted at source for and on behalf of a deductee cannot be placed on an assessee- deductee.
The assessee, by furnishing the TDS certificate/s bearing the full details of the tax deducted at source, credit for which is being claimed, has in our view discharged the primary onus on it toward claiming credit in its respect. He, accordingly, cannot be burdened any further in the matter. The Revenue is fully entitled to conduct proper verification in the matter and satisfy itself with regard to the veracity of the assessee’s claim/s, but cannot deny the assessee credit in respect of TDS without specifying any infirmity in its claim/s. Form 26AS is a statement generated at the end of the Revenue, and the assessee cannot be in any manner held responsible for any discrepancy therein or for the non-matching of TDS reflected therein with the assessee’ s claim/s. Where so, no doubt a matter of concern, is one which is to be investigated and pursued by the Revenue, which is suitably armed by law therefor. The plea that the deductor may have specified a wrong TAN, so that the TDS may stand reflected in the account of another deductee, is no reason or ground for not allowing credit for the TDS in the hands of the proper deductee. The onus for the purpose lies squarely at the door of the Revenue.
In our considered view, therefore, firstly, no infirmity attends the impugned order in-as-much as we subscribe to and endorse the directions by the ld. CIT(A) in the matter, i.e., in principle. However, as explained here-in-above, the Revenue is obliged to grant the assessee credit for the TDS of which he is able to satisfactorily prove to the A.O. the factum of deduction of tax at source and its deposit to the credit of the central government, subject of-course to the conditions of sections 198 and 199. The A.O. is accordingly directed to allow the assessee credit for the impugned shortfall, subject to the said verification/s and condition/s. We decide accordingly.
I AM TO STATE THE TERM “TDS” FOR THE ADVANCE TAX THE BANKS DEDUCT FROM INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSITS ETC IS A MISNOMER. MOST OF THE ASSEESSEES ARE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THEY NEED NOT PAY ANY TAX ON THAT INCOME. (AS THEY HAVE ALREADY PAID TAX).
I REQUEST THE FINANCE MINISTRY / RBI TO INSTRUCT THE BANKS TO USE THE TERM “ADVANCE TAX” FOR THAT TDS. STRICTLY SPEAKING IT IS NOT TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE, BUT ADVANCE TAX.
Further to my earlier comment:
Suppose a principal outsources job of 200K to “X” he will deducct 20K.
Then further if “X” outsources 75% there of say 150K to “Y” he will deduct 15K. Further extending it if “Y” oursources 60K each to two “A” & “B” he will deduct another 6K * 2. TOTAL deduction resulting on a 200K is 47K which is 23.5%. This is on GROSS value of service.
Is not atrocious?
DELETE this DRACONIAN tax. Use the tax executives in following up real revenue loss by tracking the transactions based on Annual Information Report suggested in earlier comment.
This indeed is correct interpretation of the law.However now a days a helpless assessee has to move from post to pillar for getting the correct credit in respect of taxes paid by him or the wrong and arbitrary adjustments made by the authority.False demamnds are being raised by the officers and the said careless and most irresponsible pfficers never correct the demand and CPC keepon making the illegal adjusments.An assessee write to CPC and CPC has a mechanical software and will reply which will one to no where and then you go the assessing officer who notwithstanding his fault will simply shrug off his shoulders and will start abusing the CPC for the carelessness and will console you with a word that had the matter been with him he would have extended his total cooperation.He will never concede the reality that had been not his fault the problem would not have arisen.CPC works mechanically and does not bother to act as per the law but such wrong action is in consequence of the omission on the part of the assessing officer who is real culprit.Dirty games are being played by all and an assessee has to suffer.The stage of the dirty has been in such a manner that everybody can pass on the responsibility and nobody can be held guilty even if an assessee has been made unbearable suffering.The decisions by the courts and ITAT are delivered only for taking them for the ride by the heartless and corrupt bureaucrats.
A MUCH REQUIRED JUDGEMENT. THIS IS ALSO USEFUL FOR ADDITIONS BEING MADE ON BASIS OF 26AS. IN FACT NOW A DAYS GOVT. OFFICERS HAVE BECOME VERY MUCH OVERENTHUSIASTIC TO USE TECHNOLOGY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS AN URGENT NEED TO PROTECT INNOCENT ASSESSEES AGAINST SUCH MISUSE OF TECHONOLOGY BY GOVT. AUTHORITIES. THE BURDEN MUST BE FULLY ON GOVT. AUTHORITIES TO ESTABLISH ANY CASE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES.
I URGE OTHERS TO COMMENT , CREATE AWARENESS & DO THE NEEDFUL.
THANKS
CA ASHWIN GALA
TDS is the most PUNITIVE tax and must be abolished TOTALLY.
If I earn income I must pay tax and not my customer/client who pays me.
What does my customer/client know of my income? I may have b/fd LOSS and other exemptions like savings/ Donation to eligible organisation like CRY etc that I need not pay tax. Where-as the moment someone pays be 30001 tax @ 10% (the min tax slab) is deducted from my GROSS INCOME.
IF my total income is just 250,000.00, Rs, 25000 is deducted as TAX while my liability is just 3000+cess. I have to wait indefinitely to get refund.
When i have 50 clients who pay me 10 payments each each year i have to track 500 TAX deductions to account and claim refund which never comes.
I as a expender why should i bother about the income of my vendor?
On the contrary i am taxed at 30% if i slip on deducting tax on my vendor payment whose taxability i have no means to know.
SCRAP SCRAP SCRAP the most punitive tax.
Suggestion to track: Step-1) The expender give annually by 15th April or half yearly 31st October and 30th April the details of all vendors’ PAN and amount paid particulars above 50000.00 CUMULATIVE during the year.
Step-2) The income earner to pay tax on monthly basis before end of the month till Dec based on previous year income and jan to mar on projected income for the whole year less the tax already paid.
Step-3) Shortfall by more than 20% be charged Interest @ 2% per month or part there of.
At the first blush,the bone of contention / the view put across might be of help but not so in all situations.Assessee is, of course, required to include in tax return the gross income subjected to TDS , also claim credit for TDS, as per the data reflected in the TDS certificate. However, there could be instances in which the data (interest or TDS) as appearing in 26AS could be actually and factually correct, not the ones in the TDS certificate. If so, that could give rise to s different type of problem, hence requiring to be resolved differently.
More thoughts and suitable suggestions are called for.
The positive aspect of 26AS is we can weather the TDS from our income has gone to our account in to our account of the Income Tax dept, PAN. There should be an authority to receive the complaint on the discrepancy between TDS and 26AS, online. The culprit, either assesse or authority which issued TDS should be punished with a fine which should go to assesse account, PAN in case, the authority which did the TDS did not credit it.
The positive aspect of 26AS