9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 459 - AT - Income TaxRefund of TDS to the deductor - HELD THAT - In the present case, the CIT(A) has allowed relief to the assessee on the basis that the refund to the deductor is not possible. DR has however rightly pointed out that as per the CBDT s Circular No.2/2011 dated 2.04.2011, there is a procedure for the deductor to claim refund before the AO. The basis on which the CIT(A) allowed relief to the assessee is therefore not sustainable. In the case of Escorts Vs. DCIT 2007 (5) TMI 362 - ITAT DELHI the factual background under which credit for TDS was allowed was that the assessee claimed that the income which was subject to TDS was not taxable in his hands. In the present case, the assessee has not explained as to the status of the income as reflected in the TDS certificate The decision in the case of M/s. Bhooratnam and Co. 2013 (1) TMI 478 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT was a case where TDS certificates of an assessee were in the name of joint venture partners and credit was not given by the Department. The Hon ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held that credit should be given to the contractor whether certificate is issued in the name of joint venture or in the name of contractor. Thus, all the decisions cited by learned Counsel for the assessee are found distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case. For the reasons given above, we are of the view that the order of the CIT(A) cannot be sustained and the credit for TDS cannot be allowed to the assessee in facts and circumstances of the case. Appeal of the Revenue stands allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Credit for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) 2. Corresponding Income Declaration 3. Applicability of Section 199 of the Income Tax Act 4. Applicability of CBDT Circulars 5. Rectification Application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Credit for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS): The core issue in this case was whether the assessee could claim credit for TDS amounting to ?1,13,86,500, even though the corresponding income of ?20,27,96,304 was not declared in the Return of Income (RoI) for Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08. The CIT(A) allowed the credit for TDS to the assessee, reasoning that once TDS is recovered and deposited into the government treasury, the credit must be given to the assessee. The CIT(A) emphasized that denying credit would result in unjust enrichment for the government, as there was no provision for direct refund of excess TDS for the year in question. 2. Corresponding Income Declaration: The Revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision on the grounds that the assessee did not disclose the income corresponding to the TDS amount in the RoI for AY 2007-08. The Revenue argued that as per Section 199 of the IT Act, credit for TDS should be given in the AY in which the income attributable to the TDS amount is assessable. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not provide a satisfactory explanation regarding the accounting of the income of ?20,32,25,349, which was reflected as the amount on which TDS was deducted. 3. Applicability of Section 199 of the Income Tax Act: The Tribunal highlighted that as per the provisions of Section 199 of the IT Act (prior to its amendment effective from 01.04.2008), credit for TDS should be given in the AY for which such income is assessable. The Tribunal referenced the ITAT Chandigarh Bench's decision in the case of Pradeep Kumar Dhir Vs. ACIT, which established that credit for TDS must be given in the AY where the income subjected to TDS is disclosed in the return. The Tribunal emphasized that the conditions for TDS credit are the production of the TDS certificate and the disclosure of the corresponding income in the return. 4. Applicability of CBDT Circulars: The Revenue cited various CBDT circulars, including Circular No. 2/2011 and Circular No. 6/2011, which provide procedures for the deductor to claim refunds for excess TDS. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) ignored these circulars and incorrectly assumed that Section 200A was effective from 01.04.2010, thereby not applicable to AY 2007-08. The Tribunal concluded that the CIT(A)'s decision was contrary to the provisions of the Act and the CBDT circulars. 5. Rectification Application under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act: The assessee filed a rectification application under Section 154 of the Act, requesting credit for TDS. The AO rejected the application, stating that since the corresponding income was not offered to taxation, the credit for TDS could not be allowed. The CIT(A) overruled the AO's decision, but the Tribunal ultimately sided with the AO, stating that the credit for TDS cannot be allowed without the corresponding income being declared. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, stating that the CIT(A)'s order could not be sustained. The Tribunal held that credit for TDS cannot be allowed to the assessee in the absence of corresponding income declaration in the RoI for AY 2007-08. The appeal by the Revenue was thus allowed, and the order of the CIT(A) was reversed.
|
