IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT Assessment year : 2024-25 Mrs. Antaash Sheikh, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1030/2, Geethanjali Layout, Circle 5(3)(5), HAL III Stage, Jeevan Bheem Nagar, Bangalore.

Bangalore – 560 075. PAN: AONPS 2924J APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Hariprasad Nayak, CA Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue.

Date of hearing : 22.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.09.2025

O R D E R

1. This appeal is filed by Mrs. Antaash Sheikh (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment year 2024025 against the appellate order passed by the Addl./JCIT(A), Kanpur [ld. CIT(A)] dated 29.3.2025 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 29.1.2025 by the CPC was partly allowed.

2. Briefly stated the only grievance of the assessee is that deductor of Tax Deduction at Source [TDS] is Dunzo Digital Pvt. Ltd., who has deducted tax at source from monthly salary paid to assessee. However, the deductor has not deposited the tax with Income Tax Department and therefore in Form 26AS of the assessee, no tax credit in form of TDS from salary amounting to Rs.13,26,900 was appearing. This sum was claimed as TDS in the return of income filed by the assessee on 15.1.2025 at a total income of Rs.47,09,760. Assessee has claimed the TDS of Rs.13,14,694 as pre-paid taxes. This return was processed and on 29.1.2025 an intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act was issued wherein the assessee was denied the credit of pre-paid taxes of 13,14,694.

3. Against this intimation, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.

CIT(A), who restored the matter back to the file of the jurisdictional AO directing him to verify the claim of the appellant from Form 26AS and ITR and if the claim is found to be correct, an appropriate amount of TDS credit be allowed to the assessee.

4. Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee is in appeal before us.

5. The ld. AR submitted that assessee was not issued any salary statement neither in Form 26 nor issued any TDS certificate which prevented the assessee to show before the ld. AO about the TDS. Therefore the above sum could not be reflected in Form 26AS. It was submitted that when the assessee is an employee of that company, who has deducted TDS and the copy of the pay slips clearly show that tax has been deducted from her salary, the assessee must be granted credit of the TDS. He referred to the pay slip placed for the whole year in the Paperbook and also yearly statement at page 107. He further submitted that merely because the employer has not paid tax after deducting the same, the credit for TDS could not be denied in the hands of the assessee.

6. The ld. DR vehemently objected to the same and stated that when the employer who has deducted tax at source has not deposited the tax to the credit of the Central Govt., the assessee cannot be allowed the tax credit for the same.

7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities. The brief facts show that assessee is an employee of Dunzo Digital Pvt. Ltd. From the verification of the salary slips placed in the PB, it is apparent that tax is deducted from the salary of the employee by the employer. The employer has not deposited the tax to the credit of the Central Govt. Due to this, there was no credit appearing in Form 26AS of the assessee. Due to this, credit was denied by the CPC.

8. On appeal before the CIT(A), direction was given to the AO to give credit to the assessee of the TDS to the assessee if it appears in Form 26AS. Naturally when no tax is deposited by the employer after deducting tax from the salary of the employee, it will not appear in Form 26AS of employee. If the employer after deducting the tax does not deposit the same to the credit of the Central Govt., that cannot be a cause for denying the credit to the employee who has suffe