ACCENTURE SERVICES P.LD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 1(1), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the adjustment of excess TDS paid in one quarter against the liability in another quarter is permissible as per CBDT circular. The Assessing Officer was directed to make the adjustment manually.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed an adjustment of excess TDS paid in the second quarter against the TDS liability in the fourth quarter of the same financial year. The TDS returns processing system did not allow this adjustment electronically, leading to a demand notice.
What were the issues?
Whether excess TDS paid in one quarter can be adjusted against the TDS liability of a subsequent quarter within the same financial year, and if manual adjustment is permissible when electronic processing fails.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
N/A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” Bench, Mumbai
Before: Shri B.R. Baskaran (AM)& Shri Pawan Singh (JM)
O R D E R Per B.R. Baskaran (AM) :-
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.7.2016 passed by the learned CIT(A)-59, Mumbai and it relates to the financial year 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16. The grievance of the assessee is that the demand raised for short payment of TDS amounting to Rs.15,00,363/- for fourth quarter of F.Y. 2014-15 has been raised without giving credit for excess amount of TDS paid in second quarter of F.Y. 2014-15.
The Learned AR submitted that the assessee deducted TDS from certain payments made to certain non-residents in the second quarter of F.Y. 2014- 15. Subsequently, it came to the notice of the assessee that payments so made are not chargeable to tax under Indian Income Tax Act in the hands of the non-residents and hence no tax is liable to be deducted from such payments. Accordingly, the assessee treated TDS amount so paid as “excess payment of TDS amount”. Subsequently the assessee adjusted the same against TDS amount payable in the fourth quarter of F.Y. 2014-15. He submitted that the CBDT, vide its circular No. E-257 dated 12.9.2014, has clarified that excess
2 Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd. amount of TDS paid in a particular quarter can be claimed in the following quarters of the relevant year. Accordingly, learned AR submitted that the action of the assessee in adjusting the excess payment of TDS against tax liability of fourth quarter is perfectly in tune with the Circular issued by CBDT.
He submitted that the TDS returns are processed electronically, it did not permit adjustment of excess payment in the fourth quarter and accordingly demand of Rs. 15,00,363/- was raised on the assessee along with consequential interest. The Ld A.R submitted that the Ld CIT(A) accepted that such kind of adjustment is permissible, but still confirmed the demand raised.
The Learned AR submitted that it has come to the knowledge of the assessee that the Assessing Officer is empowered to make such kind of adjustments manually, i.e., adjustment of excess payments made in second quarter against the demand raised in the fourth quarter. Accordingly he prayed that the Assessing Officer may kindly be directed to make adjustment manually in order to give set off of excess payment of TDS made in the second quarter of F.Y. 2014-15 against TDS liability of fourth quarter of F.Y. 2014-15. He submitted that, if said adjustment is so made, then interest liability would also go.
We heard learned DR and perused the record. There should not be any dispute the adjustment claimed by the assessee is in accordance with the Circular issued by CBDT. According to Ld A.R, if such kind of adjustment could not be made electronically, the Assessing officers are authorized to do the same. The Ld D.R did not controvert the submissions so made by Ld A.R. Accordingly we direct the Assessing Officer to do the adjustments manually after satisfying himself about the claim of the assessee. According to Ld A.R, there will not be any interest liability if the adjustment as requested by the assessee is made. The Assessing Officer may take appropriate decision in accordance with law with regard to interest liability.
3 Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed.
Order has been pronounced in the Court on 27.02.2018.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Capri Global Capital LTD Through Represented By Its Law Officer Mr. Varun Kaljoria vs. The State Of Madhya Pradesh Through Principal SecretaryMadhya Pradesh · 26 Oct 2026
- Sri Tatiparthy Venkata Swamy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 25 Oct 2026
- Piyush Shantilal Veera vs. State Of U.P.Allahabad · 23 Oct 2026
- Tvl. Pooja Shri Traders vs. The Deputy State Tax Officer - 1Madras · 23 Oct 2026
- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026