PAWAN KUMAR AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 72(1), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer (AO) for verification. The AO was directed to allow the TDS credit if satisfied with the documents produced by the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed credit for TDS of Rs. 1,21,968/- which was not appearing in their Form 26AS. The deductor had allegedly mentioned a wrong PAN in the TDS return, leading to the discrepancy.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee is entitled to credit for TDS which is not reflected in Form 26AS due to a wrong PAN being reported by the deductor.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. N. S. Saini
ORDER This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-21, New Delhi dated 13.03.2018.
The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in not allowing credit for TDS of Rs.1,21,968/- which was deducted from the assessee but is not appearing in 26AS.
Before the CIT(A), the assessee filed order u/s 154 of the Act which was dated 09.08.2016 wherein TDS credit of Rs.2,35,063/- was given to the appellant. The CIT(A) observed that from submission of the appellant, it appears that deductor has mentioned wrong PAN in the TDS return and hence balance claim of Rs.1,21,968/- was not appearing in 26AS. This defect has to be rectified by the deductor. Unless, this is done, credit 2 Pawan Kumar Agarwal of tax cannot be given to the correct deductee as credit might have gone to the wrong PAN holder in whose name this TDS has been shown by the deductor. Therefore, he held that there was no infirmity in the order passed u/s 154 of the Act in allowing credit for TDS against which PAN of the assessee has been shown by the deductor.
Before me, the AR of the assessee has filed copy of Form No. 26AS which is placed at page no. 25 of the paper book. The assessee has also filed copy of screen shot taken from Income Tax website and ITD system showing wrong PAN AAEPP1658G mentioned in TDS return by employer not in existence placed at page nos. 26 & 27 of the paper book. He has also filed communication from employer placed at page nos. 28 to 33 of the paper book. The assessee has also filed copy of CBDT Instruction no. 275/29/2014-IT-(B) placed at page no. 60 of the paper book. From these documents, the assessee submitted that the AO may be directed to allow credit of balance amount of TDS of Rs.1,21,968/- to the assessee.
The ld. DR had no objection to restore the matter to the file of the AO for allowing the credit for TDS to the assessee after verification.
In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I restore the issue to the file of the AO for verification of TDS allowable to the assessee from the documents to be furnished by the assessee before him. If he is satisfied with the verification of the documents to be produced by the assessee then he shall allow credit for balance amount of TDS of Rs.1,21,968/- as claimed by the assessee. With these directions, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 05/02/2019).
More judgments on Section 154
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rakesh Kumar Malani, JaipurITA 1425/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Anita Sharma, JaipurITA 1344/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Ramtirath Bawa, Nagpur vs ITO Ward3(4), NagpurITA 327/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Mohinder Singh, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 3(4), NagpurITA 322/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kamlasana Impex Private Limited vs. Director General Of GST Intelligence (Hq) Delhi) & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Ritu Gautam Proprietor Of Ms Heritage International vs. Additional Commissioner Central Goods And Services Tax Appeals Ii Delhi & Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- Sutha vs. The State Tax Officer(Inspection-3)Madras · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S.Sri Satya Sai Constructions vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026
- Anisha Busa vs. Sibar Institute Of Dental SciencesAndhra Pradesh · 27 Oct 2026