ACIT, CIRCLE - 11(2), , KOLKATA vs. M/S. SHRISTI INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., KOLKATA

For the reasons stated in the Revenue’s condonation petition and on account of assessee’s no objection, we condone one day’s delay in filing of the Revenue’s appeal ITA No.2140/Kol/2018. The case is now taken up for adjudication on merits.

The Revenue’s sole substantive grievance pleaded in the instant appeal is that CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in allowing the taxpayer’s plea seeking credit of the TDS income of ₹65,27,640/- to be offered in the corresponding assessment year going by Rule 37BA of the IT Rules, 1962. The amount in dispute herein of TDS credit of ₹67,27,614/-. The CIT(A)’s detailed discussion directing the Assessing Officer to allow credit thereof in the assessment year in which corresponding income has been offered for taxation reads as under:- “4. Ground No.3, is regarding non-granting of TDS credit. According to the AO the assessee has received advances on which TDS has been deducted since the same has not been offered for income during the year, therefore, credit for the TDS can’t be allowed in AY 2011-12. The Ld. A/R contended that he has not received credit for the TDS either in AY 2011-12 or in subsequent years. I have perused the submission of the assessee, assessment order and provision of law. Rule 37BA is very clear, credit for TDS has to be allowed in the year in which corresponding income has been offered for taxation. Therefore, the AO is directed to give credit for the TDS credited in the year which corresponding incomes have been offered for taxation by the assessee. The assessee is directed to produce the relevant evidence before the AO. The second part of the grievance of the assessee is that sometimes the deductor has deducted TDS on advance as well as on the final billing. However, credit for TDS deducted on advance has not been granted in such cases while credit for TDS deducted on final billing has been given. Since in the instant case, the deductor has already deposited the TDS amount and it is getting reflected 26AS of the deductee. Further, the A/R stated that he will file an undertaking from the deductee that they have not claimed any refund of the double deduction of TDS. It is also seen that there is no provision in law for refund of such TDS to the deductor. Therefore, it is logical that the credit for such excess TDS paid by deductor would go to the assessee’s account. The AO is directed to grant the corresponding credit. Therefore, ground no. 3 is allowed.”