2022 (2) TMI 536 - HC - Income Tax

TDS credit and refund along with up-to-date interest - HELD THAT - Revenue accepts notice. He states that certain TDS claims made by the petitioner are not reflected in the Form 26AS statement. As petitioner states that in the relevant Assessment Year, the assessee had been incorporated as a subsidiary of Qualcomm Incorporated and some of its vendors had erroneously deposited the TDS of the assessee in the account of Qualcomm Incorporated. This issue has been dealt with by the CIT(A) in its order dated 21st September, 2017 wherein it has directed the Assessing Officer to verify the facts and allow the credit of the TDS claimed if it is paid to the credit of the Central Government and not claimed by Qualcomm Incorporated. In view of the aforesaid direction of the CIT(A), this Court disposes of the present writ petition with the directions to the Assessing Officer to implement the aforesaid direction of the CIT(A) as well as to pass appeal effect order and pay refund, if any, along with up to date applicable interest, if any, to the petitioner/assessee for the Assessment Year 2013-14 within twelve weeks.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner seeks TDS credit, refund, and interest for Assessment Year 2013-14. Petitioner alleges denial of legitimate TDS credit and refunds despite a favorable order from ITAT. Respondents have not issued appeal effect order. Dispute regarding TDS claims not reflected in Form 26AS statement.

Analysis:

1. TDS Credit and Refund Claim:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking TDS credit, refund, and interest for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The petitioner argued that despite a favorable order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in 2019, the respondents failed to issue the appeal effect order, resulting in the denial of legitimate TDS credit and refunds without any legal basis. The petitioner relied on constitutional provisions, Supreme Court decisions, and previous court judgments to support their claim. The petitioner also highlighted that multiple requests to the respondents to issue the appeal effect order and grant TDS credit and refunds had been ignored.

2. Dispute over TDS Claims:
During the proceedings, it was revealed that certain TDS claims made by the petitioner were not reflected in the Form 26AS statement. The petitioner explained that in the relevant Assessment Year, the assessee had been incorporated as a subsidiary of another company, and some vendors had mistakenly deposited the TDS of the assessee in the account of the parent company. The CIT(A) had directed the Assessing Officer to verify the facts and allow the credit of the TDS claimed if it was paid to the credit of the Central Government and not claimed by the parent company. The court, taking note of this direction, disposed of the writ petition with instructions for the Assessing Officer to implement the CIT(A)'s direction, issue the appeal effect order, and pay any refunds along with applicable interest to the petitioner within twelve weeks.

3. Court's Direction and Cooperation:
The court directed the petitioner to cooperate with the Assessing Officer to ensure the timely implementation of the directions provided in the judgment. The cooperation was deemed necessary to facilitate the implementation of the CIT(A)'s directive and the court's orders within the stipulated twelve-week timeframe. This cooperation was crucial for the successful resolution of the TDS credit and refund issues raised by the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2013-14.