IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, PATNA BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, VP AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM (Assessment Year:2024-25)

Income Tax Officer Ashish Ranjan ITO Ward 3(1), Income Tax New balbhadrapur, Laheria Vs. Department, Darbhanga, Sarai, Darbhanga, Bihar-846001 Darbhanga, Bihar-846004 (Appellant) (

Respondent)

PAN No. ALFPR4903H Assessee by : Shri Sudeep Sinha, AR Revenue by : Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, DR Date of hearing: 28.11.2025 Date of pronouncement: 05.01.2026

O R D E R

Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mysore (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 31.01.2025 for the AY 2024-25.

2. The only issue raised by the assessee in the various grounds of appeal is against the order of ld. CIT (A) upholding the assessment order, wherein the ld. AO has raised a demand of ₹9,42,570/-

resulting from non-deposit of TDS by the employer of the assessee.

2.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee was employed with M/s Think and learn Private Limited, which is gone into liquidation and therefore, the tax conducted on behalf of the assessee from the salaries was not deposited resulting into mismatch of TDS claimed by the assessee in the return of income vis-à-vis the TDS amount appearing in form 26AS. The assessee filed the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act which were processed u/s 143(1) of the Act vide order dated 10.09.2024, passed by the DCIT, CPC, Bangalore in which the demand of ₹9,43,570/- was created on account of mismatch of Tax Deducted at source.

2.2. The appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the ld. CIT (A) by observing and holding as under:-

“8. The Ground No. 2, 3, 5 and 6 raised by the appellant are related to the same issue i.e. denial of TDS amounting to Rs.8,48,953/-. As the issue involved in the grounds of appeal is same, the grounds are adjudicated together. The appellant submitted that during the period relevant to the instant AY he has earned salary income against which his employer deducted TDS of Rs.8,48,953/-. There was default on the part of the employer in remitting the TDS amount in Government Account and therefore, this TDS amount was not reflected in 26AS and in turn, the TDS claim in the return was denied while processing return of income u/s.143(1). The appellant submitted that as there was no mistake from the appellant, the appellant should have been allowed for credit of TDS. The appellant furnished "Full & Final Settlement" from his employer in support of the claim.

8.1 The impugned order u/s.143(1) along with 26-AS statement and the appellant's submission is verified. Form 16/16A is the certificate of TDS or TCS that is issued by the deductor which serves as an evidence that tax deducted or collected by him is deposited to the Government account under a particular PAN. There is a need to obtain a TDS Certificate. The rationale behind introducing Form 26AS was to enable the taxpayers to cross-check and verify their details in the TDS certificates with the details recorded in Form 26AS and maintain transparency of information. In this instant case, the appellant failed to furnish the evidence of tax deduction by the deductor by not submitting TDS certificate. In view of the fact of the case, the grounds of appeal of the appeal are dismissed.”

2.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee was employed with M/s Think and learn Private Limited and received salary which was paid to the assessee after deduction of tax at source. The assessee was also issued TDS Form showing full amount of Tax Deducted at source. However, the employer company did not deposit the same in the government treasury resulting into mismatch between the TDS as claimed by the assessee as per form 16/16A Vis-à-vis form 26AS as appearing in the portal of the Revenue. In our opinion, once the tax is deducted by the employer, the assessee employee c