आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘ए’ (cid:13)ायपीठ, चे(cid:18)ई।

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI (cid:21)ी जॉज(cid:24) जॉज(cid:24) के , उपा(cid:26)(cid:27), एवं सु(cid:21)ी पदमावती यस, लेखा सद$ के सम(cid:27)

BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND MS. PADMAVATHY.S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2182/Chny/2025 िनधा(cid:24)रण वष(cid:24) /Assessment Year: 2024-25 Karthik Lakshman, The Income Tax Officer, Old No.15/2, New No.27, Vs. International Taxation Ward-1(2), East Road, West CIT Nagar, Chennai.

Chennai – 600 035.

PAN: AAGPK 5343Q (अपीलाथ(cid:7)/Appellant) ((cid:8)(cid:9)यथ(cid:7)/Respondent)

अपीलाथ( की ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate *+थ( की ओर से /Respondent by : Ms. R.Kavitha, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 22.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 30.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R PER PADMAVATHY.S, A.M:

This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-16 (in short "CIT(A)") passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act") dated 11.07.2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2024-25. The only issue contended by the assessee in this appeal pertain to non grant of TDS credit to the assessee on the ground that the assessee's employer has not remitted the tax deducted into the Govt. account.

2. The assessee is an individual and filed the return of income for A.Y 2024-25 on 25.12.2024. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act in which the credit for TDS to the tune of Rs. 68,99,266/- deducted on salary by the employer M/s. Think and Learn Pvt. Ltd. (Byjus) that was not deposited to the Govt. account was denied. On further appeal, the CIT(A) dismissed the contentions of the assessee. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A).

3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material available on record. The Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the issue is covered by the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of S. Satyaraj v. ACIT [ITA No.1529/Chny/2023 dated 30.04.2024] where it is held that:

“4. The only issue before us is whether the tax credit on TDS made by the deductor not remitted to the department and also, it is not available in Form 26AS can still be given credit to the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, in his written submissions stated that the tax has already been deducted at source by the payer and furnished all the details of payment made to him after deducting tax, along with invoices and corresponding bank statements showing the receipts. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, also relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Judicature of Madras in the case of Executors of the Estate of S. Shanmuga Mudaliar vs ACIT & Others in TCA No. 388 of 2008 dated 11.08.2014, wherein the Hon’ble High Court has relied on the judgment of Bombay High Court in the case of Yashpal Sahni vs Rekha Hajarnavis vs ACIT, reported in [2007] 293 ITR 539 (Bom) and the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Smt. Ansuya Alva vs DCIT reported in [2005] 278 ITR 206 wherein Court held that, “the facts and circumstances of the above case is similar to the facts of the present case. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the bar under sec. 205 of the Act prevents the department from demanding the tax deducted at source from the assessee who has suffered a deduction. Further, more now the liability rests with the official liquidator. Therefore, the Department is at liberty to proceed against the company in liquidation in the hands of the official liquidator by filing a claim for the amount in question”.

The ld. Counsel also stated that the above judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case and requested to allow the TDS credit of Rs.

2,50,000/- as TDS credit, which has already been deducted by the payers.

5. Per contra, the ld. DR, Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, has argued that the credit cannot be given by the Department unless