IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.5313/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year:2018-2019)

Anil Kumar Gang

103, Shankeshwar Residency, Near Dhanwanti Hospital, Pal Road, Jodhpur – 342008. Rajasthan.

[PAN: ACEPG8249D] …………. Appellant Vs Income Tax Officer Ward 16(2)(1), Mumbai Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai - 400001.

Maharashtra. …………. Respondent Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : None For the Respondent/Department : Shri B. Laxmi Kanth Date Conclusion of hearing : 16.12.2025 Pronouncement of order : 07.01.2026

O R D E R

[

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 30/07/2025, passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 1, Gurugram [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Intimation Order, dated 18/10/2022, passed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2018-2019.

2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

1. That on the facts and law, in the circumstances of the case, the learned lower authorities erred in deny the benefit of credit of Tax Deducted of Sources of Rs.2,12,350/- by employer during the relevant Financial Year.‖

3. We have the Learned Departmental Representative and have the perused the material on record.

4. The short issue involved in the present appeal pertains to denial of credit of tax deducted at source.

5. The Assessee received back employees’ contribution to the superannuation fund from employer [i.e., Mehsana District Cooperative Milk Producer Union Ltd.] after deduction of tax at source amounting to INR.2,12,350/-. The Assessee offered the said amount to tax in the return of income for the Assessment Year 2018-2018 and claimed the of credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) of INR.2,12,350/-. While processing return of income under Section 143(1) of the Act, the Assessee was not allowed credit of the same and therefore, the Assessee moved application under Section 154 of the Act for rectification claiming credit of TDS of INR.2,12,350/-. However, the rectification request made by the Assessee was rejected.

6. Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the Learned CIT(A) contending as under:

―The assessee has furnished the evidences in respect of tax has been deducted from the income and do not reflect in Form no.26AS as well as Form no.16. Therefore, credit has not been allowed. The credit has to be allowed according to Form no.22 (Rule 33) Statement of tax deducted at source issued by deductor/employer dated 22.06.2017.

Sec 205, CBDT Instructions and a series of High Courts Judgment have reinforced a basic jurisprudence that where TDS has been deducted by the employer but not paid to the government or does not reflect in 26A, recovery of the same cannot be made from employee or credit of TDS cannot be denied.

It is, therefore, requested that the credit of TDS of Rs.2,12,350/- is allowed.‖

The Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal preferred by the Assessee holding as under:

―4.2.1 The appellant in its reply had stated that he received back employees‘ contribution to the superannuation fund from employer i.e., Mehsana District Cooperative Milk Producer Union Ltd. amounting to Rs. 10,84,458/- after deducting TDS of Rs. 2,12,350/-. The appellant has enclosed a copy of the Form-22, journal voucher of Mehsana District Co-operative Milk Producer Union Ltd. and bank statement highlighting the entry of amount credited into his account after deducting TDS of Rs. 2,12,350/-

and the same are reproduced as under:-

xx xx

4.2.2 However, on perusal of the reply and record available with this office, it has been found that appellant has received Rs. 14,14,338/-[16,26,688 – 2,12,350] as contribution to superannuation fund. Further, it has been observed that the TDS deducted by the employer on repay