TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee’s claim on the mere technical ground that the income in respect of the said TDS claim was not that of the assessee, given that M/s Relcom (the assessee) and M/s REPL are sister concerns and M/s REPL has not raised any objection with regard to the assessee’s TDS claim of ₹ 1,20,73,097/-. The provisions of Rule 37BA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, which envisions grant of TDS credit to entities other than the deductee (herein, M/s REPL). We must clarify that we are not oblivious of the fact that Rule 37BA is not directly applicable in the facts of this case. The reliance placed on Rule 37BA is merely to demonstrate that in not all circumstances is TDS credit given to the deductee. This Court relies upon the well-settled dict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as, the Act ).The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that as per Form 26AS statement, though the total receipts declared by the assessee was ₹ 6,20,99,368/- (as opposed to ₹ 19,08,20,903/-), the TDS claimed was ₹ 1,20,73,097/-. The assessee's explanation for the discrepancy was that a vendor had billed M/s Relcom Engineering Pvt. Ltd. ( REPL ), its sister company, for the work but had mistakenly mentioned its (assessee s) PAN in the TDS certificate, thus inadvertently crediting its TDS account in the 26AS statement, which is PAN based. 3. The assessee had claimed credit of all TDS certificates, including that related to M/s REPL but the income of this certificate w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee. The observations of CIT(A) are reproduced below: 4.2 I have carefully considered the submissions made by the appellant and the assessment order framed by the AO and I am of the considered opinion that there is no technicality involved in the issue and it is purely a matter of applying little bit of common sense. It is clear from the narrations in the preceding paragraphs that there is an apparent mistake on the part of the vendor who has billed M/s. REPL for the work, but has mistakenly mentioned the PAN of M/s. Relcom in the TDS certificate. Thus, the credit of TDS has gone in the account of M/s. Relcom in the 26AS statement, which is PAN based. The appellant found it cumbersome to get fresh corrected certificates from the vendo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eclared total receipts of ₹ 6,20,99,368/-. 6. Having heard the submissions made on behalf of the revenue and after a perusal the orders passed by the CIT(A) and the ITAT, we are of opinion that the said orders do not call for any interference and were warranted and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. Before we proceed to elaborate on our reasons for the same, a perusal of Section 199 of the Act is necessary. Section 199 reads as follows: 199. Credit for tax deducted. (1) Any deduction made in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Chapter and paid to the Central Government shall be treated as a payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income the deduction was made, or of the owner of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TDS claim of ₹ 1,20,73,097/-. 8. This Court s reasoning is supported by a ruling of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in CIT v. Bhooratnam, (2013) 357 ITR 196 (AP), where the Court noted as follows: In our view, the CIT (Appeals) and the Tribunal have rightly held that the assessee is entitled to the credit of the TDS mentioned in the TDS certificates issued by the contractor, whether the said certificate is issued in the name of the Joint Venture or in the name of a Director of the assessee company. They have considered the terms of the agreement dated 12-03- 2003 among the parties to the joint venture and held that credit for TDS certificates cannot be denied to the assessee while assessing the contract re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
