SHRI AMIT PRAKASH MEHTA,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CPC, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to credit for TDS deducted by the employer, even if the employer defaulted in depositing it. The Revenue cannot recover the tax again from the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed credit for TDS deducted by his employer, which the employer allegedly failed to deposit with the government. The lower authorities denied this credit, stating the assessee failed to prove the TDS deduction.
What were the issues?
Whether an assessee can be denied TDS credit if the employer deducted it but failed to deposit it with the government. Whether the Revenue can recover tax again from the assessee in such a scenario.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Yashpal Sahni v. ACIT38 citing293 ITR 539 · 2007 · HC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “A”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI KULDIP SINGH & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN
Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member:
The appellant, Shri Amit Prakash Mehta (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 26.10.2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2017-18 on the grounds inter-alia that :- “1(a). The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred as "CIT(A)"] erred in confirming the action of AO in not allowing the TDS credit being TDS deducted but not paid to the credit of Central Government by the employer.
The Appellant submits that he has offered the corresponding income for taxation from which TDS has been deducted by the employer for the year under consideration; hence, he shall be allowed to claim the TDS credit in the subjected year. The Appellant also submits that he shall not be forced to make the payment of TDS which has already been deducted by the employer but not paid to the credit of Central Government. 1(b). The Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of AO in ignoring the CBDT Office Memorandum dated 11/03/2016 bearing number F.No 275/29/2014-IT (B) and instruction letter dated 01.06.2015 issued by the Hon'ble CBDT. The Appellant craved leave to add, amend and modify the above ground of appeal.”
Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are: the assessee is an individual tax payer, filed the return of income for the year under consideration declaring the total income of Rs.32,26,348/- by determining the tax liability at Rs.9,27,125/- which has been paid as TDS to the tune of Rs.2,17,710/- and self assessment tax of Rs.7,07,420/-. While processing his return of income under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (for short ‘the Act’) his liability of Rs.1,42,605/- was determined.
The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has confirmed the addition by dismissing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing present appeal.
We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of the parties to the appeal, perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto.
Undisputedly the assessee has drawn salary of Rs.10,05,021/- from its employer M/s. Shrunej & Co. Ltd. It is also not in dispute that during the first appellate proceedings the assessee has uploaded his submission on 24.08.2021 along with documents viz. computation of total income for A.Y. 2017-18, statement of full and final settlement for A.Y 2017-18 by employer namely M/s. Shrunej & Co. Ltd., form 26AS for A.Y. 2017-18. It is also not in dispute that the assessee has self determined its tax assessment at Rs.7,07,420/- and claimed that a TDS of Rs.2,19,710/- has been paid by his employer. The Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on the sole ground that the assessee has failed to prove that the TDS amount has been deducted as alleged.
The assessee has also brought on record computation of total income, statement of full and final settlement issued by his employer, form 26AS statement showing the month-wise TDS deducted from the salary along with salary slip, all for the year under consideration available in the paper book from page 1 to 9 of the paper book. When we examine the computations of income, statement of full and final settlement issued by assessee’s employer, form 26AS showing deduction of tax from his salary and statement showing month-wise TDS deduction, all these documents show that the assessee’s employer has deposited TDS of Rs.2,17,710/- and assessee paid self assessment tax of Rs.7,07,420/-, total amounting to Rs.9,27,125/- by declaring income of Rs.32,26,348/-.
Similar issue had arisen in case of the assessee in the earlier year i.e. for A.Y. 2016-17 wherein co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal by relying upon CBDT circular dated 11.03.2016 bearing F.No.275/29/2014-IT(B) and decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case of Yashpal Sahni vs. ACIT (2007) 293 ITR 539 reached the conclusion that the Revenue Department cannot deny the benefit of tax deducted at source (TDS) by the employer of the assessee and credit thereof would be given to the assessee for the respective years. If there has been any recovery or adjustment within the refunds of the later years the same shall be returned to the petitioner with statutory interest.
Once it is proved on file that the TDS as claimed by the assessee have been deducted by his employer its credit cannot be denied to the assessee rather its defaulter is to be penalized under section 221 of the Act. Even under section 205 of the Act tax deducted at source cannot be demanded from the assessee having been already deducted from his salary by his employer. So if the tax has been deducted but not paid to the government it cannot be collected again from the assessee who has already suffered deductions, because in the Income Tax Act scheme inbuilt mechanism has been made to take care of such eventualities.
In view of what has been discussed above and following the order passed by the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2016-17 date of order 30.09.2022, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in denying the relief sought for by the assessee who is entitled for credit of TDS deducted by his employer and the Revenue is not entitled to recover the same from the assessee.
Resultantly, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 19.01.2023.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Karthik Lakshman, Chennai vs Iyo, Intl Taxationward-1(2), ChennaiChennai30 Jan 2026Allowed
Also relies on Yashpal Sahni v. ACIT
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied TDS credit because the deductor's failure to remit the tax does not affect the assessee's right to claim credit. Section 205 of the Act bars direct demand from the ass...
- Nisar Ebrahim Ookabhoy, Mumbai vs ITO Ward 16(3)(1), MumbaiMumbai24 Dec 2025Allowed
Also relies on Yashpal Sahni v. ACIT
The Tribunal held that the assessee is entitled to credit of TDS to the extent deduction from its receipts is established by contemporaneous material on record. The denial of credit by CPC and its affirmation by the CIT(...
- Naik Naik and Co, Mumbai vs ACIT -16(3), MumbaiMumbai30 Sept 2025Allowed
Also relies on Yashpal Sahni v. ACIT
The Tribunal held that credit for TDS cannot be denied solely because it does not appear in Form 26AS, especially when the assessee has provided primary evidence of deduction and offered the income to tax. The levy of in...
- Chenthanmara Kp Nair, Mumbai vs Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax - 42(2)(1)…Mumbai26 Sept 2025Allowed
Also relies on Yashpal Sahni v. ACIT
The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be penalized for the employer's failure to deposit TDS. Following the precedents from the Bombay and Gujarat High Courts, the Tribunal directed the AO to grant the credit of TDS...
- Late Soli Engineer, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle…Mumbai12 Jun 2025Allowed
Also relies on Yashpal Sahni v. ACIT
The Tribunal held that the revenue cannot hold the assessee liable for TDS that was deducted but not deposited into the government treasury by the deductor. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to grant the necess...
More judgments on Section 205
- Hanoze Harish Thakkar, Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer Ward 19(1)(5), MumbaiITA 9314/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed25 Sept 2026AY 2014-15
- Amitava Datta, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward - 62(1), KolkataITA 1674/KOL/2026[2022-2023]Status: Disposed14 Sept 2026AY 2022-2023
- M. Visvesvaraya Industrial Research and… vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)…ITA 4343/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2026AY 2020-21
- Sheth Fincap Services Private Limited… vs The Income-Tax Officer, DCIT 1(3)(1), MumbaiITA 4304/MUM/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed7 Sept 2026AY 2025-26
- Anita Grover, Delhi vs Income Tax Officer, DelhiITA 4305/DEL/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2019-20
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Crs Builders Private Limited vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026