The taxpayer is entitled to TDS credit despite the deductor's failure to remit the deducted taxes, ensuring no coercive demand is imposed on the taxpayer according to statutory provisions and directives.

JUDGMENT :

DR. B.R. SARANGI, J.

The petitioner, by means of this writ petition, challenges inaction of opposite party no.4 in granting credit of the tax deducted at source amounting to Rs.2,68,733/- under Section 143 (1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2013-14.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner, being a salaried employee, is an assessee under the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “I.T. Act”). He had been filing his return of income with opposite party no.4 regularly. For the assessment year 2013-14, vide acknowledgement no. 682834840260713 dated 26.07.2013, he filed the return of income electronically. During the period April, 2012 till October, 2012, the petitioner was employed under opposite party no.6-M/s. Corporate Ispat alloys Ltd. and received gross salary of Rs.25,39,766/-, out of which a sum of Rs.5,90,112/- was deducted as tax at source under Section 192 of the I.T. Act. Upon repeated request, opposite party no.6 did not issue Form 16 for the assessment year 2013-14.

2.1. Form 26AS drawn from the Income Tax Department’s website reflects a sum of Rs.3,21,379/- was deducted and deposited by opposite party no.6. There was a difference of Rs.2,68,733/- in between the tax deducted by opposite party no.6 and the amount reflected in Form 26AS. Upon processing of the return of income, opposite party no.4 issued intimation under Section 143 (1) of the I.T. Act on 26.07.2014 without taking into account TDS of Rs.2,68,733/- deducted by opposite party no.6 and while issuing such intimation, he also charged interest under Section 234B and 234C of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs.55,417/- for shortfall in payment of prepaid taxes.

2.2. Upon receipt of the intimation from opposite party no.4, the petitioner sent letter dated 05.08.2014 addressing to the Managing Director, M/s. Corporate Ispat Alloys Ltd.-opposite party no.6 for mis-match of tax deducted under Section 192 of the I.T. Act. Thereafter, he also sent letter dated 12.08.2014 to the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Patna for initiation of appropriate action against the deductor/employer, i.e., opposite party no.6.

2.3. As per the provision contained in Section 143 (1)(c) of the I.T. Act, opposite party no.4 is under legal obligation to take into account the tax deducted at source, tax collected at source, advance tax, etc. In spite of communication being made to the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Patna on 12.08.2014, the petitioner did not receive any communication with regard to the steps taken by the very same authority. Therefore, there was inaction by opposite party no.4 in granting credit of tax amounting to Rs.2,68,733/- deducted at source by the deductor/employer during the assessment year 2013-14 along with interest of Rs.55,417/- levied under Section 234B and 234C of the I.T. Act in total determined the amount of Rs.3,24,150/- under (1)(c) of the I.T. Act. Hence, this writ petition.

3. Mr. R.P. Kar, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. A.K. Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since the tax has been deducted at source by the deductor-opposite party no.6 under Section 192 of the I.T. Act during the assessment year 2013-14, so far as petitioner is concerned in PAN-AHNPK0207H for the period from April 2012 to October 2012, a total amount of Rs. 5,90,112/-, the petitioner is entitled to get credit of tax deducted at source of the entire amount. He has also made reference to the salary statement, wherein the income tax deduction has been shown at source containing at page-12 to 18 of the brief. Therefore, the tax having been deducted at source by the deductor, obligation casts