Mundra House, 822-A, Shivaju Nagar, Civil Lines, jaipur-302006 9314501680, 9314501791

B.P.Mundra

मानवता से काम करें मन के सारे काम अपने आप हो जायेंगे

इस महीने के इम्पोर्टेंट काम
  • Home
  • GST
  • Cases Income tax
  • MCA
  • Subsidy
  • TDS
  • About Us
  • contact us
  • Login
    • Admin Login
    • Staff Login
    • User Login
  • Loan
  • Apply for job
  • Click Here
  • HOW TO
  • To file ITR for AY 2022-23 kindly give details (and also evidence if yes) of following
  • Categories
    • Articles
    • Authority
    • Benami Transactions (Prohibition)
    • client
    • Constitution of India
    • Finance Act 1994
    • formalities to be completed
    • GST
    • Happiness
    • HOW TO
    • Income Tax
    • Indian Evidence Act 1872
    • Job Application
    • MCA
    • Office system
    • Papers required for filing
    • Principal of mutuality
    • rajasthan public trust
    • Smile
    • Subsidy
    • work report

B.P.MUNDRA

Mundra House, 822-A, Shivaju Nagar, Civil Lines, jaipur-302006 9314501680, 9314501791


In Case Of TDS Is Deducted And Due To Any Default The Credit Of The Same Is Not Given Then The Assessee Shall Not Be Called Uopn To Pay The Tax Himself To The Extent To Which The TDS Is Dedcted

B.P.Mundra > Income Tax > Cases Income tax > In Case Of TDS Is Deducted And Due To Any Default The Credit Of The Same Is Not Given Then The Assessee Shall Not Be Called Uopn To Pay The Tax Himself To The Extent To Which The TDS Is Dedcted

admin November 15, 2019

Cases Income tax

Loading

The assessee shall not be called upon to pay the tax himself to the extent to which tax has been deducted from that income. Section 205 of the Income Tax act, 1961 which is as under:-

“Where tax is deductible at the source under [the foregoing provisions of this Chapter], the assessee shall not be called upon to pay the tax himself to the extent to which tax has been deducted from that income.”

THERE ARE VARIOUS IMPORTANT JUDGEMENTS ON THIS ISSUE THAT WHERE TDS IS NOT REFLECTED IN 26AS DUE TO NON DEPOSIT OF TDS OR WRONGLY DEPOSITED BY THE TDS DEDUCTOR

  1. When form 16A has been issued

In Sumit Devendra Rajani Versus Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax case the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat has decided “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….”

  1. The assessee cannot be doubly saddled with the tax liability when the TDS is deducted as held in ACIT vs. Om Prakash Gattani (2000) 242 ITR 638, the Hon’ble Gauhati High has decided that “It would not be possible to proceed to recover the amount of tax from the assessee. The assessee cannot be doubly saddled with the tax liability. Deduction of tax at source is only one of the modes. Once this mode is adopted and by virtue of the statutory provisions the person responsible to deduct the tax at source deducts the amount, only that mode should be pursued for the purpose of recovery of tax liability and the assessee should not be subjected to other modes of recovery of tax by recovering the amount once again to satisfy the tax liability. It is, therefore, provided u/s 201 of the Income-tax Act that the person responsible to deduct the tax at source would be deemed to be an assessee in default in case he deducts the amount and fails to deposit it in the Government treasury. As observed earlier, the assessee has no control over such person who is responsible to deduct the income-tax at source, but fails to deposit the same in the Government treasury. In this light of the matter, in our view, the notices issued under Section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act to the bankers of the petitioner-respondent to satisfy the tax liability from the bank account of the petitioner-respondent are illegal. It is not that the Income-tax Department was helpless in the matter. The person responsible to deduct the tax at source would move into the shoes of the assessee and he would be deemed to be an assessee in default. Whatever process or coercive measures are permissible under the law would only be taken against such person and not the assessee.”
  2. Once the TDS is deducted then there is specific bar contained in Section 205 of the Act as held in Yashpal Sahni vs. ACIT (2007) 293 ITR 539 the Hon’ble Bombay High Court that  “Although it is obligatory on the part of the person collecting tax at source to pay the said TDS amount to the credit of the Central Government within the stipulated time, if such person fails to pay the TDS amount within the stipulated time, then, Section 201 of the Act provides that such person shall be deemed to be an assessee in default and the revenue will be entitled to recover the TDS amount with interest at 12% p.a. and till the said TDS amount with interest is recovered there shall be a charge on all the assets of such person or the company. Penalty u/s 221 of the Act and rigorous imprisonment u/s 276B of the Act can also be imposed upon such defaulting person or the company. Thus, complete machinery is provided under the Act for recovery of tax deducted at source from the person who has deducted such tax at source and the revenue is barred from recovering the TDS amount from the person from whose income, tax has been deducted at source. Therefore, the fact that the revenue is unable to recover the tax deducted at source from the person who has deducted such tax would not entitle the revenue to recover the said amount once again from the employee-assessee, in view of the specific bar contained in Section 205 of the Act.”
  3. The department is restrained in terms of Section 205 of the Act from enforcing any demand as held in In Smt. Anusuya Alva vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Others (2005) 278 ITR 206 (Karn). The Hon’ble Karnataka High Court held that “In the circumstances, I am of the view that the Revenue is to be definitely restrained in terms of Section 205 of the Act from enforcing any demand on the assessee-petitioner insofar as the demand with reference to the amount of tax which had been deducted by the tenant of the assessee in the present case, and assuming that the tenant had not remitted the amount to the Central Government. The only course open to the Revenue is to recover the amount from the very person who has deducted and not from the petitioner.”
  4. Similarly in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Ranoli Investment P. Ltd. and Others (1999) 235 ITR 433(Guj). The Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat in this case has decided  that “As provided by s. 205 of the Act, where tax is deductible at source, the assessee shall not be called upon to pay the tax himself to the extent to which it has been deducted from the relevant income. Thus, from the aforesaid provisions it emerges that as soon as the tax is actually deducted at source by the person responsible to make payment, the liability of the assessee to pay that tax gets discharged and it is for the person who has deducted the tax at source to deposit the same with the Government.”

There are various other judgments of the different Hon’ble High Courts where it has been decided that if the TDS is reflecting in Form 16/Form 16A or TDS certificates or the fact of TDS deduction is established, then the Department must provide the credit of the same to the concerned assessee and he/she shall not be called upon to pay the tax again to the extent to which tax has been deducted.

Total Page Visits: 920 - Today Page Visits: 1

← Previous post

Next post →

Categories

  • 1860 (1)
  • 1956 (1)
  • 1973 (1)
  • 2002 (1)
  • 2013 (1)
  • Articles (78)
  • Authority (1)
  • Benami Transactions (Prohibition) (1)
  • client (59)
  • Code of Criminal Procedure (0)
  • Companies Act (2)
  • Constitution of India (2)
  • Cr.P.C. (2)
  • Due dates (1)
  • Finance Act 1994 (0)
  • formalities to be completed (6)
  • GST (59)
  • Happiness (4)
  • HOW TO (47)
  • HUF Property (1)
  • Income Tax (310)
  • Indian Evidence Act 1872 (1)
  • Indian Penal Code (1)
  • invalid notice (1)
  • Job Application (0)
  • MCA (3)
  • Notice 148 (0)
  • Office system (9)
  • Papers required for filing (6)
  • PMLA Act (1)
  • Prevention of Money Laundering Act (1)
  • Principal of mutuality (1)
  • rajasthan public trust (2)
  • Smile (7)
  • Subsidy (5)
  • work report (2)
  • Archives

    • February 2025
    • January 2025
    • July 2024
    • October 2023
    • September 2023
    • July 2023
    • April 2023
    • March 2023
    • February 2023
    • January 2023
    • December 2022
    • October 2022
    • September 2022
    • August 2022
    • July 2022
    • June 2022
    • May 2022
    • April 2022
    • March 2022
    • February 2022
    • January 2022
    • December 2021
    • November 2021
    • September 2021
    • August 2021
    • July 2021
    • June 2021
    • May 2021
    • April 2021
    • March 2021
    • February 2021
    • January 2021
    • December 2020
    • November 2020
    • October 2020
    • September 2020
    • August 2020
    • July 2020
    • June 2020
    • May 2020
    • April 2020
    • March 2020
    • February 2020
    • January 2020
    • December 2019
    • November 2019

    Recent Posts

    • GST registration: को-ओनर जिसके नाम से बिजली का बिल है को GST Registration के लिए दूसरे ऑनर से एनओसी लेने की आवश्यकता नहीं है। FCA BPMUNDRA
    • FCA BPMUNDRA 9314501680 [email protected] क्या आयकर नोटिस 148 को इशू का नोटिस धारा 149 के अनुसार उस समय माना जाएगा जब वह नोटिस धारा 282 रूल 127 के प्रावधान के अंतर्गत प्रिसक्राइब्ड मोड ऑफ सर्विस पुरी की जाए। दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट ने 21 फरवरी 2025 मारुति सुजुकी की अपील को स्वीकार करते हुए धारा 148 में इशू नोटिस को इस आधार पर रद्द कर दिया कि नोटिस भले ही 31 मार्च 2016 को डिजिटल साइन हो गया लेकिन इश्यू 1 अप्रैल 2016 time barred होने के बाद को हुआ। Section 148, Section 282, Section 127, Section 149, time barred, notice, Delhi High Court, Quash, Quashed, Annulled
    • टीडीएस अमाउंट ज्यादा भर दिया है तो उसका रिफंड क्लेम करने के लिए जो सीबीडीटी ने 2 साल का लिमिटेशन पीरियड सर्कुलर से तय किया है के आधार पर आईटीओ रिफंड देने का मना नहीं कर सकता। यह सर्कुलर अल्ट्रा वायर्स दिल्ली हाई कोर्ट ने 31 जनवरी 2025 के फैसले में घोषित किया है। FCA BPMUNDRA
    • Rectify the filed GSTR-1 return in order to get ITC benefit
    • Whether claim of exemption under section 54F is allowable for capital gain on sale of shares which was sold in lieu of plot and construction and thereafter assessee made further payment towards remaining construction. The permission of transfer of property was not obtained in the time period as available in section 54F. ITAT KOLKATA allowed the deduction u/s 54F in the case of Basabdutta Dutta v. ITO vide IT APPEAL NO. 868 (KOL.) OF 2023 [AY 2014-15] on dated 11.07.2024. FCA BPMUNDRA 9314501680