SEJI MIYAZONO,BANGALORE vs. ACIT CIRCLE-INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1)(1), NEW DELHI
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY & DR. B.R.R. KUMAR
PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM:
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.
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
ITA No.1671/Del/2020 AY: 2018-19
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.
We have considered rival submissions and perused the
materials on record. The TDS credits which the CPC has
disallowed are as under:
Sl. TAN of the Amt. claimed Amt. Amount Amount AY Valid No. Deductor/PAN under TAX of Claimed Matched Mismatch (7) Tan (1) of the Buyer Deductor/PAN of (4) (5) (6) Flag (2) the buyer in (8) Column. (3) 1. BLRYO0735A YASKAWA INDIA 40,42,85 38,72,850 1,70,009 2018 Y PRIVATE LIMITED 9 2. BLREO3625G EMPLOYEES 1,78,692 0 1,78,692 2018 Y PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION 2 | P a g e
ITA No.1671/Del/2020 AY: 2018-19
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. 3 | P a g e
ITA No.1671/Del/2020 AY: 2018-19
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.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2022
Sd/- Sd/- (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 31st October, 2022. RK/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
4 | P a g e
