KARTHIK LAKSHMAN,CHENNAI vs. IYO, INTL TAXATIONWARD-1(2), CHENNAI

PDF
ITA 2182/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 January 2026AY 2024-25Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND MS. PADMAVATHY.S (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

Facts

The assessee's employer deducted TDS of Rs. 68,99,266/- from salary but did not deposit it to the government account. The assessee claimed credit for this TDS, but the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) denied it.

Held

The Tribunal held that the assessee cannot be denied TDS credit because the deductor's failure to remit the tax does not affect the assessee's right to claim credit. Section 205 of the Act bars direct demand from the assessee.

Key Issues

Whether the assessee is entitled to TDS credit when the deductor has failed to remit the deducted tax to the government account.

Sections Cited

Section 205, Section 221(1), Section 143(1), Section 200

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND MS. PADMAVATHY.S

Hearing: 22.01.2026Pronounced: 30.01.2026

आदेश / O R D E R

PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16 (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 11.07.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2024-25. The only issue contended by the assessee in this appeal pertain to non grant of TDS credit to the assessee on the ground that the assessee's employer has not remitted the tax deducted into the Govt. account.

2.

The assessee is an individual and filed the return of income for A.Y 2024-25 on 25.12.2024. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act in

ITA No.2182/Chny/2025 Karthik Lakshman :- 2 -:

which the credit for TDS to the tune of Rs. 68,99,266/- deducted on salary by the employer M/s. Think and Learn Pvt. Ltd. (Byjus) that was not deposited to the Govt. account was denied. On further appeal, the CIT(A) dismissed the contentions of the assessee. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

3.

We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of S. Satyaraj v. ACIT [ITA No.1529/Chny/2023 dated 30.04.2024] where it is held that: “4. The only issue before us is whether the tax credit on TDS made by the deductor not remitted to the department and also, it is not available in Form 26AS can still be given credit to the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, in his written submissions stated that the tax has already been deducted at source by the payer and furnished all the details of payment made to him after deducting tax, along with invoices and corresponding bank statements showing the receipts. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Madras in the case of Executors of the Estate of S. Shanmuga Mudaliar vs ACIT & Others in TCA No. 388 of 2008 dated 11.08.2014, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has relied on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Yashpal Sahni vs Rekha Hajarnavis vs ACIT, reported in [2007] 293 ITR 539 (Bom) and the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt. Ansuya Alva vs DCIT reported in [2005] 278 ITR 206 wherein Court held that, “the facts and circumstances of the above case is similar to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the bar under sec. 205 of the Act prevents the department from demanding the tax deducted at source from the assessee who has suffered a deduction. Further, more now the liability rests with the official liquidator. Therefore, the Department is at liberty to proceed against the company in liquidation in the hands of the official liquidator by filing a claim for the amount in question”. The ld. Counsel also stated that the above judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and requested to allow the TDS credit of Rs. 2,50,000/- as TDS credit, which has already been deducted by the payers. 5. Per contra, the ld. DR, Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, has argued that the credit cannot be given by the Department unless the deductor has remitted to the exchequer of the Government and quarterly returns are filed by the deductor to reflect in Form 26AS of the assessee. Unless, these procedures are completed, the Department cannot give TDS credit to the assessee.

ITA No.2182/Chny/2025 Karthik Lakshman :- 3 -:

Therefore, denial of the TDS credit, which is confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is correct and required to dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

6.

We have heard rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the fact of TDS already been deducted is admitted and there is no dispute about the same. Admittedly, the assessee has produced and filed all the details of invoices raised, payment received after the deduction of tax at source and corresponding bank statements in support of the same. We have gone through the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Kartik Vijaysinh Sonavane vs DCIT, 132 Taxmann.com 293, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has pronounced that the Department has speculated from denying the benefit of tax deducted at source by the employer during the relevant financial years to the petitioner by relying on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of ACIT & Ors vs Om Prakash Gattani [2000] 242 ITR 638, this Court allowed the same. Vital would be to reproduce the relevant findings and observations. "4. The issue is no longer res integra. The Division Bench of this Court in case of Sumit Devendra Rajani (Supra) examined the statutory provisions and in particular Section 205 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Court concurred with the view of the Bombay High Court in case of Asst. CIT VS. Om Prakash Gattani, reported in (2000) 242 ITR 638 and observed as under - "10. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Bombay High Court and Gauhati High Court. Applying the aforesaid two decisions of the Bombay High Court as well as Gauhati High Court, the facts of the case on hand and even considering Section 205 of the Act action of the respondent in not giving the credit of the tax deducted at source for which form no.16 A have been produced by the assessee - deductee and consequently impugned demand notice issued under Section 221(1) of the Act cannot be sustained. Concerned respondent therefore, is required to be directed to give credit of tax deducted at source to the assessee deductee of the amount for which form no.16 A have been produced. 11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated petition succeeds. It is held that the petitioner assessee deductee is entitled to credit of the tax deducted at source with respect to amount of TDS for which Form No.16A issued by the employer deductor - M/s. Amar Remedies Limited has been produced and consequently department is directed to give credit of tax deducted at source to the petitioner assessee - deductee to the extent form no.16 A issued by the deductor have been issued. Consequently, the impugned demand notice dated 6.1.2012 (Annexure D) is quashed and set aside. However, it is clarified and observed that if the department is of the opinion deductor has not deposited the said amount of tax deducted at source, it will always been open for the department to recover the same from the deductor. Rule is made absolutely to the aforesaid extent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs."

5.

Facts in both case are very similar. Under the circumstances, by allowing these petitions we hold that the Department cannot deny the benefit of tax deducted at source by the employer of the petitioner during the relevant financial years. Credit of such tax would be given to the petitioner for the respective years. If there has been any recovery or adjustment out of the refunds of the later years, the same shall be returned to the petitioner with statutory interest."

7.

We also noted that Surat Benches of Tribunal in the case of Liladevi Dokania vs ITO in ITA NO. 126/SRT/2021 dated 27.06.2022, has considered

ITA No.2182/Chny/2025 Karthik Lakshman :- 4 -:

similar situation, wherein the assessee received rental income and the tenant has deducted TDS, but has not remitted TDS, so deducted in the Central Government account. Considering these entire facts, we noted that issue under consideration is no longer res-integra by relying on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Kartik Vijaysinh Sonavane vs DCIT (Supra), wherein it has been held that whether TDS has been deducted by the employer, it will always been open for the department to recover the same from the deductor when credit of the same have been denied to assessee and directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of the assessee and allow credit on TDS in accordance with law. 8. In the given facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that in the present case, the particulars of TDS made by the payer to the assessee has been completely available. The claim of such TDS based on the deductions made by the payer has been claimed by the assessee as per the provisions of law. So far as, the assessee is concerned, he has no role in depositing TDS with exchequer. The statutory duty to deposit the amount deducted at source as tax is that of the person who is responsible to deduct the tax at source as per section 200 of the Act. The assessee only gets a certificate to that effect by the person responsible to deduct the tax. In a case where the amount has been deducted by the person responsible to deduct tax amount under statutory provisions, the assessee is not in control over the matter. The responsibility of such person is to the extent that he has to be deemed to be an ‘assessee in default’ in respect of tax. Going by the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kartik Vijaysinh Sonavane vs DCIT (Supra), we are of the view that the tax has to be recovered from the deductor, but not from the assessee who is seeking credit. 9. In conclusion, the order of the ld. CIT(A) cannot be sustained by respectfully following the decisions of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Madras in the case of Executors of the Estate of S. Shanmuga Mudaliar vs ACIT (supra) and Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt. Ansuya Alva vs DCIT (supra) and Surat Bench of Tribunal, in the case of Liladevi Dokania vs ITO (Supra), we direct the Assessing Officer to give credit on TDS claimed by the assessee as per the provisions of Act.”

4.

From the perusal of the above decision of the Coordinate Bench and the reliance placed on the various judicial precedence it is clear that the assessee cannot be denied the credit for the tax deducted at source by the employer for the reason that the deductor i.e. employer has not remitted the same into the Govt. account. Further, Section 205 of the Act introduced by the Finance Act, 2023, bars direct demand against the assessee to pay the tax himself to the extent to which tax has been deducted from that income. Accordingly the intention of the legislation is clear not to call upon the assessee to pay the tax

ITA No.2182/Chny/2025 Karthik Lakshman :- 5 -:

to the extent to which tax has been deducted. In view of this discussion and the judicial precedence, we direct the A.O to give credit to the tax deducted from the salary income of the assessee as claimed.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 30th day of January, 2026 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज� जॉज� के) (पदमावती यस) (Padmavathy.S) (George George K) उपा�� / Vice President लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य /Accountant Member लेखा लेखा सद�य सद�य चे�नई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 30th January, 2026. EDN, Sr. P.S आदेश क� �ितिल�प अ�े�षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु�/CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF

KARTHIK LAKSHMAN,CHENNAI vs IYO, INTL TAXATIONWARD-1(2), CHENNAI | BharatTax