MEENAKSHISUNDARAM SANKARNARAYAN vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE AND ORS

WP/7553/2026HC BombayHCBM01023745202616 September 20263 pages

AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court quashed and set aside the impugned order dated 7th October 2025 passed by the learned CIT(A) to the extent it directed the Assessing Officer not to give credit of TDS deducted merely because it was not reflected in the Petitioner’s Form 26AS. The Court also set aside the order dated 17th February 2026 passed by the Assessing Officer to the extent it gave effect to the CIT(A)'s order. The Court directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the documents submitted by the Petitioner to substantiate his claim that TDS was deducted from his salary. If satisfied, credit for the TDS must be given to the Petitioner, following the principle laid down in Manohar Jhunjhunwala (supra). The entire exercise was to be completed within six weeks.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Meenakshisundaram Sankarnarayanan, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 7th October 2025 passed by the learned CIT(A) and an order dated 17th February 2026 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Assessing Officer). The core dispute revolved around the credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) from the petitioner's salary. The CIT(A) had directed the Assessing Officer not to grant credit for TDS solely because it was not reflected in the petitioner's Form 26AS. The petitioner contended that TDS had indeed been deducted from his salary by Respondent No.3. The High Court noted that the facts were identical to another writ petition, WP No. 6662 of 2026.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the Assessing Officer not to give credit of TDS deducted from the petitioner's salary merely because it was not reflected in the petitioner's Form 26AS? (Question of law and fact, concerning the provisions related to TDS credit). Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that TDS had been deducted from his salary, and credit for this deduction should be granted. The assessee relied on the High Court's decision in Manohar Jhunjhunwala (supra). Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the Revenue on this issue. However, the impugned order of the CIT(A) suggests the Revenue's stance was that non-reflection in Form 26AS was a sufficient ground to deny TDS credit.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

13.wp.7553.26.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7553 OF 2026 Meenakshisundaram Sankarnarayanan .. Petitioner Versus Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1 & Ors .. Respondents Mr. Nageshwar Rao (through VC), with Radha Halbe, Advocates for the Petitioner. Mr. Akhileshwar Sharma, Advocates for the Respondents / Revenue.

CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA & FARHAN P. DUBASH, JJ. DATE: SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 P. C. 1. It is common ground before us that the facts in the present case are identical to the facts in Writ Petition No.6662 of 2026. For the reasons stated in our order passed today in Writ Petition No.6662 of 2026, we hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 7th October 2025 passed by the learned CIT(A) insofar as it gives a direction to the Assessing Officer not to give credit of the TDS deducted merely because it is not reflected in the Petitioner’s Form 26AS. We also set aside the order dated 17th February 2026 Page 1 of 3 SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 Aswale ANJALI TUSHAR ASWALE Digitally signed by ANJALI TUSHAR ASWALE Date: 2026.09.22 11:22:50 +0530

13.wp.7553.26.doc

passed by Respondent No.1 to the extent of giving effect to the order dated 7th October 2025. 2. We now direct the Assessing Officer, namely, the 1st Respondent to re-examine the documents submitted by the Petitioner to substantiate his claim that TDS has been deducted from the salary paid to him by Respondent No.3. If the Assessing Officer is satisfied with the explanations given by the Petitioner that TDS has been deducted from his salary, then naturally credit for the same will have to be given to the Petitioner as per the directions of this Court in Manohar Jhunjhunwala (supra). 3. We direct that this entire exercise shall be done by the Assessing Officer within a period of six weeks from the date of this order being brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer (1st Respondent). 4. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 5. Though we have disposed of the above Writ Petition, we place it on Board for reporting compliance on 4th November 2026. Page 2 of 3 SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 Aswale

13.wp.7553.26.doc

This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order. [FARHAN P. DUBASH, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] Page 3 of 3 SEPTEMBER 16, 2026 Aswale

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →