BILDRITE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR. -33, KOLKATA

The assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal. However, its grievance revolves around a single issue, namely the action of the CPC in not allowing credit of TDS of Rs.1,01,659/- is against the law.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income electronically declaring total income of Rs.50,60,501/-. In this return, the assesese has claimed TDS Credit of Rs.2,20,722/-. This return

Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Bildrite Construction Company was processed under section 143(1). The CPC Unit has allowed the TDS Credit of Rs.1,19,063/- as against Rs.2,20,722/- claimed by the assessee. In this way, a TDS Credit of Rs.1,01,659/- has been disallowed to the assessee. Dissatisfied with this action, the assessee filed a rectification application under section 154, which was rejected by the CPC.

The assessee took the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(Appeals). The ld. CIT(Appeals) concurred with the ld. Assessing Officer by recording the following finding:- “5. I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the order u/s 154 of the I T Act of CPC, grounds of appeal and statement of facts. During assessment, intimation u/s 143(1) dated 10.01.2020 was passed in the case of appellant disallowing full credit for TDS claimed in the return of income. During the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant in the statement of facts contended that “Return of income was filed by the appellant declaring total income of Rs 50,60,501/- and was duly processed by the CPC u/s 143(1). On-going through the order it will be found that full credit on account of TDS has not been given to the appellant and thus petition u/s 154 was filed on 05.02.2020 and the same was rejected by the CPC. The matter relates to the appellant working with South East Central Railways where there was an arbitration award in respect of dues available to the appellant from the railways and the appellant was found entitled to Rs 50,82,956/- relating to its contractual work done with the Railways. This amount was duly shown by the appellant as the part of its turnover for the A Y 2005-06 and tax on the same was accordingly paid. The Railways paid'the outstanding amount along with interest in the A Y under appeal i.e. 2018-19 and theJax deducted on the amount of contractual receipts as well as accrued interest worked out at RS.2,20,722J- was deducted by the Railways. However, the CPC though credit of TDS on the amount relating to interest which was paid bfirailways during the year, credit in respect of amount of TDS deducted on the contractual work Whidh has suffered tax during the A Y 2005-06 was not given. Thus the sole issue involved in this appeal relates only to the amount of credit of TDS which is available to the appellant as per the relevant income has already suffered tax in an earlier year. .

With the assistance of ld. Representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. The stand of the assessee is that it had worked for South East Central Railways, where certain disputes were sent for arbitration. The Arbitration Award has been received vide which the assessee was found to be entitled for Rs.50,82,956/- relating to its contractual work done with the Railways. This contractual work was done in A.Y. 2005-06 and it was part of the turnover. Tax on the same was accordingly paid. The TDS Credit was also related to that and on receipt of this amount after arbitration, it is offered as income. The assessee has claimed TDS Credit and contended that it should be either given in A.Y. 2005-06 or in this year when income is offered on the award. The Computer Processing Centre did not accept this claim of the assessee for want of complete information at its end. To our mind, once a legitimate claim was filed by the assessee and if the respondent-revenue is not able to process that claim for want of complete details at its end, then it 3