Sponsored
    Follow Us:
Sponsored

Different Methods of accounting followed by deductor and deductee

Issue/Justification

One of the important reasons for mismatch of TDS claimed and TDS as per Form 26AS is adoption of different method of accounting (i. e. Cash or Mercantile) by the deductor and deductee. Various situations that may arise have been explained below by means of examples:

i) Deductor– Mercantile system of accounting

Deductee–Cash system of accounting

If the deductor follows mercantile system of accounting, the tax would be deducted at source and deposited in the year in which provision is made. Whereas the deductee following the cash basis of accounting, would offer the income and claim TDS in the year in which the amount is actually received by him. For example audit fees paid to a Chartered accountant’s firm by a company. In such a case it is difficult for the deductee to claim TDS as the TDS certificate is issued in respect of the year other than the year in which it is claimed.

Also in some cases, the receipts may be spread over in two or more years. In such cases, there is difficulty in getting credit of TDS in second and subsequent year in which amount is actually received.

(ii) Deductor– Cash system of accounting

Deductee – Mercantile system of accounting

There is a provision to take the credit of TDS in the year in which income is asses sable to tax. If for any reason, TDS certificate has not been furnished; such certificate can be produced within two years u/s 155 of the Income-tax Act. But issue generally arises when the following situation occurs:

In case of a deductee who maintains books of accounts on mercantile basis. The amount due to him in respect of a government contract is accounted for in his books of accounts in a particular year and advance tax/ self assessment tax is paid by him in respect of that income. However, the government which maintains books of account on payment basis pays the amount after two years after deducting tax at source. In such a case, the assessee would neither be entitled to claim credit of TDS in the year of receipt as the income has already been offered to tax in an earlier year nor he would be able to get refund of tax paid by him as the time to file revised return may also have expired. This amounts to payment of tax twice to the government.

Suggestion

TDS should not be linked with the year of income or the year of receipt. Credit for TDS may be given on the basis of the claim made by the assessee irrespective of the assessment year in which income is received or income is offered to tax. There should be a clear differentiation between amount deducted and amount claimed. The TDS not claimed in a particular year due to any reason may either be allowed to be claimed in the any other assessment year or to be refunded to the deductee. The total TDS claimed and the balance, if any, may be reflected in Form 26AS. Form No. 26AS should be made as a bank pass book where the unclaimed credit is allowed to be carried forward for claiming in the next year.

Source-  ICAI Pre- Budget Memorandum–2018 (Direct Taxes and International Tax)

Sponsored

Tags:

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

3 Comments

  1. RAJESH VEGAD says:

    SIR, SAME ISSUE HAPPENED IN MY CASE. I AM CA AND CLIENT (MERCANTILE SYSTEM) DEDUCTED AND PAID TDS IN FY 2018-19. FEES RECEIVED BY US IN FY 2019-20( CASH SYSTEM). TDS OF FY 18-19 CLAIMED AS CARRIED FORWARD IN ITR AY 19-20. NOW IN ITR AY 20-21 THE SAME SHOW AS BROUTH FORWARD. BUT IT DEPTT DID NOT CONSIDER THIS BROGHT FORWARD TDS FOR REFUND IN ITR AY 20-21.

    1. Pawan Bhageria says:

      I found details of Delhi high court case:
      Here is the information on case: [2013] 31 taxmann.com 31 (Delhi)/[2013] 214 Taxman 335 (Delhi)/[2013]
      352 ITR 273 (Delhi)

      HIGH COURT OF DELHI
      Court On Its Own Motion
      v.
      Commissioner of Incometax*
      Section 139, read with sections 143(1), 154, 245, 200 and 244A, of the Incometax
      Act, 1961 Return
      of income General
      [Guidelines] Public
      interest Litigation was
      filed alleging numerous difficulties faced by income tax assessees after
      implementation of computerization and central processing of returns To
      remove
      such difficulties, mandamus were issued regarding (i) maintenance of register for
      receipt and disposal of rectification applications under section 154; (ii) procedure
      prescribed under section 245 to be followed by CPC before making adjustment of
      refund payable with existing demand; (iii) past adjustments, where procedure under
      section 245 had not been followed; (iv) interest under section 244A to be allowed
      when assessee is not at fault; (v) uncommunicated intimation under section 143(1);
      (vi) verification and correction of unverified TDS in Form 26AS and unmatched
      challans, within a time period to be fixed; (vii) credit of TDS to an assessee when
      tax deducted has been deposited with revenue but incorrect particulars have been
      uploaded by deductor [Paras 16, 18, 26, 27, 33, 34, 49, 50 & 57] [In favour of
      assessee]
      I am not sure how to attach it. But it should be available.

      Thanks
      SG

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031