2024 (10) TMI 252 - AT - Income Tax

Disallowing TDS Credit - Appeal of the Assessee has been erroneously dismissed by the CIT(A) for the reason that the Assessee failed to prove that any TDS was deducted by the tenant and not deposited - HELD THAT - It is not in dispute that in the case of co-owner namely Sh. Krishna Saran Dass on an identical fact for the identical period, the Ld. CIT(A) by following the Judgment of Yashpal Sahni 2007 (7) TMI 7 - HIGH COURT , BOMBAY allowed the Appeal of the Assessee thereon. It is found that the rental cheques issued by the tenant to the Assessee have been dishonored and the Assessee has filed the case for recovery before the High Court. The Ld. CIT(A) in the case of co-owner, in similar circumstances, allowed TDS credit by following Judgment of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Yashpal Sahni 2007 (7) TMI 7 - HIGH COURT , BOMBAY The case of the present Assessee being identical, the Department of Revenue cannot have different view and deny the benefit. We set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Department to allow the TDS credit to the Assessee and consequential benefits. Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disallowance of TDS credit by the Department of Revenue.
2. Dismissal of the Assessee's appeal by the Ld. CIT(A) for failure to prove TDS deduction by the tenant.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2018-19, where the Assessee's TDS credit of Rs. 75,000 was denied by the Department of Revenue. The Assessee's representative presented evidence including bank statements and legal actions against the tenant for rent recovery. The Ld. CIT(A) required confirmation from the tax deductor regarding TDS deduction, which the Assessee failed to provide. Interestingly, in a similar case of the co-owner, TDS credit was allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) based on the judgment of the Bombay High Court. The Assessee argued for the allowance of TDS credit based on this precedent.

2. The Departmental Representative sought dismissal of the Assessee's appeal, relying on lower authorities' orders. However, the Tribunal noted that in a case involving the co-owner with similar circumstances, the Ld. CIT(A) had allowed TDS credit based on the judgment of the Bombay High Court. The Tribunal found that the rental cheques issued to the Assessee were dishonored, leading to a legal case for recovery. Considering the identical nature of the Assessee's case to that of the co-owner, the Tribunal set aside the Ld. CIT(A)'s order and directed the Department to allow the TDS credit of Rs. 75,000 to the Assessee, along with consequential benefits.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the Assessee's appeal, emphasizing the consistency in treatment of TDS credit based on precedents and the identical circumstances with the co-owner's case. The Department was directed to grant the TDS credit and associated benefits to the Assessee.