9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1638X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the income was declared by the company. If so, the company must get the benefit of tax deducted at source. Wherever the payer-deductor had made the payment to the company but by error deposited tax in the account of the firm, the petitioner company must get benefit of such tax deducted at source. The petitioner has no control over the payerdeductor. In the present case those payees are all Government organizations. At the instance of Incometax Department the petitioner did try to persuade such organizations to make corrections, but failed. The respondent No.1 Assessing Officer is requested to verify full details of payments and deduction of tax at source. The petitioner shall provide necessary documents alongwith representation which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dit of TDS of ₹ 3,32,67,998/. Out of such claim a sum of ₹ 21,31,964/of TDS was not accepted by the Department on the ground of mismatch of the Permanent Account Number ('PAN' for short) of the Company and the PAN of the entity in whose account such TDS was credited by the deductee. This mismatch, as is explained by the counsel for the petitioner, arose on account of two factors. One was where the partnership firm had executed the work of infrastructure development for and on behalf of its clients but the contract contained a defect liability clause and such defect liability period was yet not over. In such situations, the firm would have to provide a deposit by way of security. The clients of the firm who were principal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itted that the return filed by the petitioner was accepted without scrutiny. The system therefore operates automatically. To the extent TDS was matched with the payments it was immediately recognized. Admittedly in the present case there was a mismatch between the petitioner's claim of TDS to the extent of ₹ 21,31,964/and the deposit of such tax by the payer or deductor. The Assessing Officer had no authority to carry out physical verification and give credit even if the petitioner's case was found to be correct. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused documents on record, if the petitioner is correct in his assertions noted above and if a total deduction of ₹ 21,31,964/is deducted by the pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
