Case Law Details
Seji Miyazona Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
The Income Tax Appellant Tribunal, Delhi (“the Tribunal”) in the case of Seji Miyazona v. ACIT (ITA No. 167/Del/2020) dated October 31, 2022 held that Tax Deducted at Source (“TDS”) credit of the bona fide assessee cannot be denied in case where the assessee committed technical/typographical error during return filing.
Facts:
Seji Miyazona (“the Appellant”) is a salaried employee. For the Financial Year 2017-18, the residential status of the Appellant as per Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the IT Act”) was of a ‘Resident but Not ordinarily Resident’. Appellant declared income of Rs. 1,25,04,980/- in return of income for the said period and claimed credit of TDS of Rs. 42,21,551/-. Centralized Processing Centre (“CPC”) of Income tax department did not grant credit of TDS of Rs. 3,48,701/- on the ground that such amount did not match with Form 26AS. The Income Tax department issued an intimation under Section 143(1) of the IT Act, for mismatch of the TDS amount claimed and available to be claimed as per Form 26AS. Appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) (“the CITA”) against the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the IT Act. The CITA passed an order on August 18, 2020 (“the Order”) against the Appellant stating that impugned TDS amount is not eligible for credit due to technical/typographical error committed by the Appellant.
Aggrieved by the order passed by the CITA the Appellant filed an appeal before the Tribunal.
Issue:
Whether credit of TDS can be denied due to technical/typographical error committed by Appellant?
Held:
The Tribunal held that:
- On perusal of Form 26AS the impugned TDS credit was reflecting, which was on the contrary to the allegation made by Income Tax department.
- Since, the TDS was deducted from the income of the Appellant, credit of the Appellant cannot be denied due to technical/typographical error committed by the Appellant.
- The Tribunal sent the issue back to be Assessing Officer of factual verification of the amount of the TDS claimed and reflected in From 26AS and set aside the order passed by the CITA.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 18.08.2020 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-42, Delhi, pertaining to assessment year 2018-19.
2. The dispute in the present appeal is confined to non-grant of TDS credit.
2.1 Briefly the facts are, the assessee is an individual having residential status of “Not Ordinarily Resident”. As it appears from the facts on record, the assessee is a salaried employee of M/s. Yaskawa India Pvt. Ltd. having office at Bengaluru. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed his return of income declaring income of Rs.1,25,04,980/-. In the return of income, the assessee claimed credit for TDS amounting to Rs.42,21,551/-. While processing the return of income filed by the assessee, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru did not grant credit for TDS amounting to Rs.3,48,701/- on the allegation of mismatch with Form 26AS. Against the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), the assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not entertain assessee’s claim.
3. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The TDS credits which the CPC has disallowed are as under:
|
Sl. No. (1) |
TAN of the Deductor/ PAN of the Buyer(2) |
Amt. claimed under TAX of Deductor /PAN of the buyer in Column.(3) |
Amt. Claimed(4) |
Amount Matched(5) |
Amount Mismatch
(6) |
AY
(7) |
Valid Tan Flag(8) |
| 1. | BLRYO 0735A | YASKAWA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED | 40,42,859 | 38,72,850 | 1,70,009 | 2018 | Y |
| 2. | BLREO 3625G | EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION |
1,78,692 | 0 | 1,78,692 | 2018 | Y |
4. On going through the reasoning of CPC as reproduced in the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), it is observed, TDS credit for the aforesaid amounts was not granted to the assessee on the allegation that the credits claimed in the return of income are not reflected in Form 26AS statement. However, on a perusal of Form 26AS statement submitted before us, it is observed, the amount of Rs.1,78,692/-, being the TDS deducted by Employees Provident Fund organization is reflected in From 26AS. Similarly, TDS amounting to Rs.1,70,009/- deducted by the employer M/s. Yaskawa India Pvt. Ltd. is also reflected in Form 26AS with TAN number. Thus, the allegation of the CPC that these two amounts are not reflected in Form 26AS, prima facie, appears to be perfunctory. In any case of the matter, since, tax has been deducted at source on the income of the assessee, full credit of such TDS has to be given to the assessee in spite of the fact that the assessee might have committed some technical/typographical error in the return of income, as alleged by learned Commissioner (Appeals). This is for the reason that the assessee cannot be deprived of getting the benefit of tax genuinely deducted on his behalf.
5. In view of the aforesaid, we restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of factually verifying assessee’s claim qua the amounts reflected in Form 26AS and allow credit for the TDS amount reflected therein. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.
6. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2022
*****
(Author can be reached at [email protected])
Author Bio
TDS mismatch – WOES continue/persist as ever ; RIDICULOUS -why, for ITATA , as the LAST FACT FINDING AUTHORITY, was the NEED ‘to restore ‘?!
CPC- a faceless stage- state of ADMN., how about the CIT (A) – though physically ABLED to know WHAT THE LAW /CASE LAW says ???
FAILURE all the way of ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW ???>>>