HARPAL KAUR,CHANDIGARH vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(1), CHANDIGARH

The short issue involved in both the appeals relates to denial of TDS credit. The facts are common in both the years, & 141/CHD/2025 A.Y.2022-23 & 2023-24 2 therefore, for the facility of reference, we take up the facts from assessment year 2022-23.

The appellant is a legal heir and wife of late Justice S.S.Nijjar, PAN No. AAHPN6038L. The assessee filed return of income for assessment year 2022-23 and 2023-24 in a representative capacity of late Shri Surinder Singh Nijjar. She claimed TDS credit of Rs.40,16,626/- and Rs.31,198/- respectively. The CPC Bangalore did not allow TDS credit of Rs.3,28,836/- and Rs.20,218/- in assessment year 2022-23 and 2023-24 respectively. The appellant filed an application u/s 154 which was also rejected.

The appellant carried the matter in appeal before the CIT (Appeals). Ld. CIT (Appeals) made reference to Rule 37BA and observed that TDS credit could only be given to the person against whose name such credit is available. He further advised the assessee that she should made a correction in the bank account so that TDS credit be given in her name.

We have duly considered the rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The ld. CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that this return was filed in a representative & 141/CHD/2025 A.Y.2022-23 & 2023-24 3 capacity of the deceased assessee, hence, all his tax liability and TDS credits are to be borne by the assessee. In other words, if some taxes were required to be paid, then she would have discharged this liability, but if late Justice S.S.Nijjar was entitled for any TDS credit, then same has to be given to his representative, namely, Legal Heir. Therefore, ld. CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate the correct position of law while dismissing the appeal. We allow both the appeals and direct the AO, including CPC, Bangalore to grant credit of this TDS within one month from receipt of this order.