During remanding the case back for re-adjudication, the Mumbai ITAT stated that the prima facie onus shall be on the taxpayer to verify its claim of non-granting of TDS credit, by furnishing pertinent documents, like an appointment letter, salary slips or Form No.16 or bank statements, or any other corroborative evidence/ documents.
The Bench of the ITAT comprising of Narender Kumar Choudhry (Judicial Member) and S. Rifaur Rahman (Accountant Member) noted that “the Assessee by filing TDS working which is though initiated by somebody but the same is neither on proper letterhead nor there is a name of the person who signed such document and even otherwise, the Assessee has also failed to file any document, wherefrom it can be reflected that the Assessee has received any particular amount of salary on which TDS has been deducted and therefore, in absence of relevant documents, the Commissioner correctly held that the AO has not made any mistake in non-granting of credit of TDS, since, the Assessee did not furnish any salary slip or Form No.16.” (Para 6.1)
As per the facts of the matter, the taxpayer had reported its total income of Rs. 42,40,705/- by filing its income return. The taxpayer’s income breakdown is – Income from Salary – Rs.41,23,173/-, Bank interest – 1,17,532/-. The taxpayer claimed TDS amounting to Rs.10,45,439/- was deducted through the employer from salary under section 192 which AO does not authorize on the foundation that the taxpayer’s employer does not show the TDS in Form No.26AS.
The CIT also confirmed the addition made by the AO by expressing that “the TDS amount of Rs.10,45,439/- has not deposited by the employer to the Government Treasury, though the amount was deducted from the Assessee’s salary income, the Assessee also did not furnish any salary slips or Form No.16 and the amount has not been deposited in the Government Treasury.”
The Bench remarked that the taxpayer claimed that the employer of the taxpayer did not provide Form No.16.
Read Also: Easy Guide to Download/Generate Form 16 via Gen TDS Software
The Bench witnessed that the taxpayer’s employer is a regular defaulter and, in another incidence, another employee has also not deposited the TDS amount deducted under section 192, which consequence in filing a matter which went up to the Hon’ble Bench of the Tribunal at Pune.
The Bench witnessed that at the time of referring to the case of Chandrashekhar Sadashiv Potphode v. DCIT in ITA No.508 & 509/Pun/2022, the Tribunal gave the relief by permitting the TDS credit because the only option to the Revenue is to recover the TDS amount not deposited via the employer who has deducted TDS and not from the taxpayer under Section 205.
As per the Bench, the taxpayer needs to release its main onus via producing the pertinent documents then only could avail the right in its correct perspective.
ITAT on finding the absence of the pertinent documents permitted the petition of the taxpayer for the statistical objectives.
| Case Title | Shri Ajit Chandrashekar Dighe Vs. The DCIT |
| Citation | ITA Nos.3334 & 3335/Mum/2023 |
| Date | 21.02.2024 |
| Appellant by | Shri Shashank Mehta, CA |
| Respondent by | Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR |
| Mumbai ITAT | Read Order |
