HC criticize Department for not giving legitimate credit of TDS to Assessee for its own shortcomings
Case Law Details
Case Name : Vaghjibhai S Bishnoi Vs Income Tax Officer & 1 (Gujarat High Court at Ahmedabad)
Related Assessment Year :
Courts :
All High Courts Gujarat High Court
Become a Premium member to Download.
If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored
The fact is not in dispute that in the case on hand, the return has been filed electronically for the A.Y 2010-11 wherein, the petitioner has made a claim for deduction of TDS as per Form 26AS under section 203AA of the Act. This is also visible from the website of the Department. The total amount of TDS deducted is shown in the Form 26AS is Rs. 4,00647=36p.. This amount is more than what has been claimed in the return of income of the petitioner. The petitioner has also explained that he had earned total freight income of Rs. 1,23,88,721/=. The audit report dec
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Sponsored
Kindly Refer to
Privacy Policy &
Complete Terms of Use and Disclaimer.
.My mother,88,is not a tax assessee. However,in AY 2012-13,TDS of Rs. 3046 was deducted from interest paid on my mother’s deposit with a non-bank FI. Return was submitted in July 2012 to claim refund of TDS. Assessing officer has been adopting delaying tactics, first he said TDS entries are mismatched and I should contact the Deductor but Deductor has stated that the Form 16-As shows “matched”, hence no mismatch. Now, the A/O is saying it is a CPC matter, i don’t know what is going on but it all seems fishy. Can CPC help ?
thousands of such type of cases are pending in the Income Tax Deptt. The official who is illegaly adament should be punished. But who will punish ?
Add-on (sharing more thoughts) >
Perforce, tempted to draw special attention to the write-up in a daily, titled – I-T dept goes for tech upgrade to tighten tax net .
And, in particular, to the following admitted position from the horse’s mouth itself:
Q
A senior income tax official said currently, data didn’t move seamlessly because modules added through the last 15 years such as e-filing, central processing centre for returns or for tax deducted at source (TDS) use different technology platforms. “Now, we are rebuilding everything and putting everyone under one structure.” The human resources system was also being integrated to make details on postings and profiles of officers accessible, the official added. UQ
Ostensibly, reading in between lines, the concerned empowered authorities, not to speak of the concerned ministries – law and finance, with whom the ultimate responsibility rests, seem to have taken no care or least minded at all to have a completely foolproof or safe-proof system in place, as would have been normally expected; thereby ensuring that the problems/woes meted out to taxpayers, in any event are minimal, if not none. On that premise, loudly wondering, one is tempted to feel strongly that, after all, the principal blame does not lie with either the lowly AOs or ACs in –charge of the CPC, but does lie elsewhere.
Poser: Is it not a significantly expensive blunder ; prima facie so ridiculous, as lacking, nay void of, wisdom in no less measure than that in the proverbial, – barking up the wrong tree, or putting the cart before the horse ?!
Is the CAG listening!
In the judgment reproduced, only AO finds mention; no mention of AC,CPC, as the OP.This brings to the fore yet again the same doubt as earlier aired- that is, is not, even in the changed computerized environment, the jurisdictional AO has to be taken to continue as the sole authority, not the AC , CPC, for all purposes, so as to communicate to. Sooner it is made clear, the better, so as to avoid any confusion. Perhaps, need to be so made clear in the Act itself.Recently, there have been complaints aired in public domain that in recent times, that is why taxpayers have been obliged to be left in a state of so called mythological, ‘Trishanku’ sort of situation.
Reaction (Impromptu)- based on own understanding :
1. Indisputable that,as is categorically provided in section 143 (1), any excess or short TDS- being the difference between the tax charged on the total income and the TDS as per 26AS has to be refunded to or required to be paid by the assessee. So far so good. But then, section 200A (in force from 1-4-2010), in one’s understanding, is noted to provide differently. Is it not so ?
If that be so,one is left wondering,is that, by any chance, the reason for the assessee not having been allowed full credit for TDS as per the data in 26 AS?
(This is an aspect/problem area which may be found anticipated hence thrown up for deliberation in some earlier comments posted on this website!)
2. in the instant case,the assessee,it appears, has been faulted to have not furnished all the necessary details in the electronically filed return.However, the fact remains, in a return e’filed, it is possible for an assessee, rather he is permitted to fill in the particulars in the respective slots, strictly to the extent, and in the manner provided; nothing more or less. In other words, he is not allowed to fill in anything additionally, even if that should have been otherwise necessary, hence, left to himself, assessee would have very much wanted and chosen to bring them on record even at the time of filing the return.
Over to professionals in practice ! Requested to apply their mind to the seemingly annoying aspects focused on above; and if be on the same wavelength,and convinced about the merits, take them up suitably with the Revenue for appropriate remedial action.
True one-It is expected that Department’s wish to herald “Tax payers friendly regime” becomes the reality. A “paradigm shift is programmed” as tax payers’ population has been growing exponentially, ushering all the imperative changes and modernization of administration.But the department official never motivate the taxpayer there are problems create by new trace system which create very old demand without any justification and not allowing the full credit of pre paid taxes and charged/adjusted against refund. Which harass the assessee and down hir/her moral in the society also. There should be a Nigrani board to look after this type of matter in revenue authorities.