TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed. - Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri H. Srinivasulu, AR For the Revenue : Shri Shakeer Ahamed, DR ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 02/11/2023 passed by the Addl/JCIT(A)-5, Chennai, ( Ld. CIT(A) ) relating to the assessment year (AY) 2020-21. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was a salaried employee of Karvy Stock Broking Limited. For the year under consideration, the assessee fled his return of income, declaring a total income of Rs. 86,10,680/- and paid total income tax of Rs. 27,37,674/-, consisting of Tax Deducted at Source ( TDS ) of Rs. 15,11,384/- and self assessment tax of Rs. 12,26,290/-. The CPC Bengluru ( CPC ) in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the income tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ), dt. 08/05/2021 did not give credit of Rs. 13,50,000/- out of total TDS of Rs. 14,75,000/- deducted by M/s. Karvy Stock Broking Limited u/s. 192 of the Act, contending that Form 26AS does contains the details of TDS of Rs. 13,50,000/- and finally raised a demand of Rs. 14,17,500/-. 3. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per contra, learned DR while placing heavy reliance on the findings of the Revenue authorities, argued that the impugned order is a well reasoned order and the same may be upheld. 8. We have heard both the parties, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the Revenue authorities along with the decisions relied upon. It is not disputed by the either of the party to the appeal that the TDS of Rs. 13,50,000/- has not been deducted. It is an admitted fact that employer of the assessee i.e. M/s Karvy Stock Broking Limited has not deposited TDS of Rs. 13,50,000/-, after deducting the same from the salary paid to the assessee and in the absence of TDS not getting reflected in form 26AS, the CPC did not grant TDS credit to the assessee, however there is no fault on the-part of the assessee. On a careful consideration of the facts of the present case, we find that the issue in this appeal is similar to the issue decided by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Harshdip Singh Dhillon vs. Union of India (supra), wherein the Hon'ble High Court decided the issue as under: . 7. On behalf of the Revenue, it was also contended that the petitioner cannot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yer/deductor. 1. Sanjay Sudan v. Asst. CIT, [2023] 452 ITR 107 (Delhi) ; 2023 SCC Online Delhi 1160 ; [2023]148 taxmann.com 329 (Delhi). 2. [2024] 462 ITR 141 (Delhi) ; 2023 SCC Online Delhi 8467. 3. [2024]470 ITR 346 (Delhi) ; 2023 SCC Online Delhi 7539. 4. [2024]470 ITR 337 (Delhi) ; 2023 SCC Online Delhi 7526. 7.2 Section 199, which is contained in Chapter XVII and, inter alia, includes provisions for collection and recovery of tax. Chapter XVII of the Act is divided into eight (8) parts. 7.3 Part A, which is general, includes sections 190 and 191. Part B concerns deduction (of tax) at source. Part BB relates to the collection (of tax) at source. Part C pertains to advance payment of tax. Part D concerns collection and recovery of tax. 7.4 Part E concerns 'tax payable under provisional assessment' and includes sections 233 and 234 of the Act as omitted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1970 (with effect from April 1, 1971), and the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 (with effect from April 1, 1989), respectively. 7.5 Part F concerns interest chargeable in certain cases. Lastly, Part G provides for provisions for the levy of fees in certain cases. 8. As would be ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uld, upon this eventuality occurring, be liable to pay interest (see sub-section (1A) of section 201). 8.7 Furthermore, the 'assessee-in-default' is also liable for imposition of penalty under section 221 of the Act. Besides this, outside Chapter XVII, penalty can also be levied under section 271 C. 8.8 In addition, thereto, a person who fails to deposit tax deducted at source, under the provisions of Chapter XVII-B, is liable for punishment with rigorous imprisonment under section 276B. 8.9 That said, both impositions of penalty and prosecution are subject to the defence of 'reasonable cause' as provided in sections 273B and 278AA of the Act, respectively. 9. Importantly, section 201 (2), provides that where a person who, although required to, does not deduct tax or does not pay the tax deducted at source or after deducting fails to pay wholly or part of the tax as required under the Act, would have a statutory charge created on his assets concerning both the tax as well as the interest payable under sub-section (1A) of the said provision. 10. Thus, in our opinion, the Act does not seem to cast a burden on the deductee-payee with regard to the deposit of money, whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rovided a regime as to how tax is required to be collected against certain payments. Once the deductee adheres to the statutory regime and allows the deductor to retain money towards tax, the nature of the amount cannot change and, therefore, the deductee, in our view, would be entitled to the credit of the amount retained by the deductor towards tax. Any other view would result in a situation where even though the assessee would have grossed up his income (by including the tax deducted at source) and offered the same for taxation, he would be denied the benefit of having the resultant tax demand adjusted against tax deducted at source by the payer. This handicap the assessee-deductee (i. e., the respondent-assessee) would suffer only because the deductor, who acts as the agent of the Central Government, chooses not to deposit the amount retained towards tax. 10. The irresistible conclusion in view of the aforesaid is that since the petitioner accepted the salary after deduction of Income-tax at source, it is his employer who is liable to deposit the same with the Revenue authorities and on this count, the petitioner cannot be burdened. We find no substantial question of law to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
