IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.4979/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year : 2018-19)

Chenthanmara KP Nair, G-103 Ekta Bhoomi Garden 1 & H Co-Op. HSG Soc. Ltd., Datta Pada Road, Borivali (East), Mumbai ............... Appellant Mumbai - 400066 v/s Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax –

42(2)(1), C41-43, G Block BKC, Gilban Area, ……………… Respondent Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400051 PAN : ACRPN1974B Assessee by : Shri Uday P. Shah Revenue by : Shri Vikas Chandra, Sr.DR Date of Hearing – 23/09/2025 Date of Order - 26/09/2025

O R D E R

PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M.

The Assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 10.07.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Additional / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata, [“learned Additional / Joint CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2018-19.

2. In this appeal, the Assessee has raised the following grounds: –

“1 The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has committed an error in law and on facts by failing to direct the Assessing Officer to allow credit for Tax Deducted at Source (TDS), notwithstanding the deductor's failure to remit the same to the Government Treasury, thereby disregarding the binding precedent established by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Tata Communications Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in Income Tax Appeal No. 1745/1746 of 2016.”

3. The only grievance of the assessee is against the non-granting of credit for the TDS deducted on the salary income.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and was working as General Manager - Marketing in M/s. Unimark Remedies Limited. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 28.07.2018, declaring a total income of Rs.17,14,460/-. During the year, the assessee declared salary income to the tune of Rs.21,20,760/- and claimed credit of TDS of Rs.3,44,989/- deducted from his salary income by M/s. Unimark Remedies Limited. The return filed by the assessee was processed vide intimation dated 12.02.2019 issued under section 143(1) of the Act by the AO–CPC accepting the return of income declared by the assessee. However, the AO–CPC did not grant the credit of TDS amounting to Rs.3,44,989/- on the assessee’s salary income. The learned Additional / Joint CIT(A), vide impugned order, after taking into consideration the fact that though the TDS was deducted by the employer, but the employer failed to deposit the same to the Government Treasury, following the instructions issued by the CBDT, directed the AO to not enforce the demand collected as per the provisions of section 205 of the Act. Being aggrieved by the non- granting of TDS credit in relation to the salary income, the assessee is in appeal before us.

5. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. During the hearing, the learned AR submitted that the assessee received a salary amounting to Rs.21,41,116/- from his employer, namely M/s. Unimark Remedies Limited. It was further submitted that on the said salary income, the employer deducted TDS amounting to Rs.3,44,989/-. In this regard, the learned AR referred to the manual salary certificate (Form 16) issued by the employer, which forms part of the paper book at pages 9 to 11. The learned AR submitted that the employer did not issue a system-generated Form 16 but instead issued a manual salary certificate, as mentioned above. It was further submitted that the employer has deducted the TDS but has not deposited the same with the Government Treasury, and hence the TDS credit has not been reflected in Form 26AS. The learned AR submitted that, in this regard, the assessee made all possible efforts to communicate with the deductor company for the payment of TDS and filing the r