This case involves Seji Miyazono, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A)-42, New Delhi concerning the assessment year 2018-19. The primary dispute was regarding the non-grant of TDS credit by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru.
The assessee, Seji Miyazono, an individual with a residential status of ‘Not Ordinarily Resident,’ is a salaried employee of M/s. Yaskawa India Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru. For the assessment year 2018-19, the assessee filed a return of income declaring Rs. 1,25,04,980/-. The return included a claim for TDS credit amounting to Rs. 42,21,551/-. However, while processing the return, the CPC disallowed TDS credit of Rs. 3,48,701/- due to a mismatch with Form 26AS.
The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), but the appeal was dismissed on the grounds that the claimed TDS credits were not reflected in Form 26AS. The specific TDS amounts in dispute were Rs. 1,70,009/- deducted by Yaskawa India Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 1,78,692/- deducted by the Employees Provident Fund Organization.
The assessee then appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), arguing that the TDS credits were indeed reflected in Form 26AS and that the denial of TDS credit was unjust.
The ITAT reviewed the submissions and perused the materials on record, including Form 26AS. It was found that the disputed TDS amounts were indeed reflected in Form 26AS. Therefore, the ITAT concluded that the CPC’s allegation of a mismatch was incorrect and that the TDS credits should be granted.
The ITAT restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for factual verification of the TDS amounts reflected in Form 26AS and directed that full credit for the TDS should be granted if verified. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
This case highlights the importance of accurate TDS credit reflection in Form 26AS and ensures that taxpayers receive the benefit of tax deducted on their behalf. It also underscores the need for tax authorities to carefully verify claims before denying credits.
The detailed order is as follows:
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.1671/Del/2020
Assessment Year: 2018-19
Seji Miyazono, 17/A, 2nd Main Road, Electronic City, Phase-I, Hosur Road, Bangalore vs ACIT, Circle-Intl. Taxation-1(1)(1), Delhi PAN: GDYPS0446H
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
Appellant by Sh. Narendra Kumar Jain, Advocate
Respondent by Sh. Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of hearing: 31.10.2022
Date of pronouncement: 31.10.2022
ORDER
PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM:
This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 18.08.2020 of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-42, Delhi, pertaining to assessment year 2018-19.
2. The dispute in the present appeal is confined to non-grant of TDS credit.
2.1 Briefly the facts are, the assessee is an individual having residential status of ‘Not Ordinarily Resident’. As it appears from the facts on record, the assessee is a salaried employee of M/s. Yaskawa India Pvt. Ltd. having office at Bengaluru. For the assessment year under dispute, the assessee filed his return of income declaring income of Rs.1,25,04,980/-. In the return of income, the assessee claimed credit for TDS amounting to Rs.42,21,551/-. While processing the return of income filed by the assessee, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru did not grant credit for TDS amounting to Rs.3,48,701/- on the allegation of mismatch with Form 26AS. Against the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’), the assessee preferred an appeal before learned Commissioner (Appeals). However, learned Commissioner (Appeals) did not entertain assessee’s claim.
3. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The TDS credits which the CPC has disallowed are as under:
Sl. No.
1. BLRYO0735A YASKAWA INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED 40,42,859 38,72,850 1,70,009 2018 Y
2. BLREO3625G EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION 1,78,692 0 1,78,692 2018 Y
4. On going through the reasoning of CPC as reproduced in the order of learned Commissioner (Appeals), it is observed, TDS credit for the aforesaid amounts was not granted to the assessee on the allegation that the credits claimed in the return of income are not reflected in Form 26AS statement. However, on a perusal of Form 26AS statement submitted before us, it is observed, the amount of Rs.1,78,692/-, being the TDS deducted by Employees Provident Fund organization is reflected in From 26AS. Similarly, TDS amounting to Rs.1,70,009/- deducted by the employer M/s. Yaskawa India Pvt. Ltd. is also reflected in Form 26AS with TAN number. Thus, the allegation of the CPC that these two amounts are not reflected in Form 26AS, prima facie, appears to be perfunctory. In any case of the matter, since, tax has been deducted at source on the income of the assessee, full credit of such TDS has to be given to the assessee in spite of the fact that the assessee might have committed some technical/typographical error in the return of income, as alleged by learned Commissioner (Appeals). This is for the reason that the assessee cannot be deprived of getting the benefit of tax genuinely deducted on his behalf.
5. In view of the aforesaid, we restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for the limited purpose of factually verifying assessee’s claim qua the amounts reflected in Form 26AS and allow credit for the TDS amount reflected therein. Grounds are allowed for statistical purposes.
6. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2022
Sd/- Sd/-
(DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (SAKTIJIT DEY)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 31st October, 2022.
RK/-
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform