RAMITA CHAUDHURI,HARYANA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER-WARD 69(1), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 4392/DEL/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Ramita Chaudhuri against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Gwalior, concerning the Assessment Year 2021-22. The primary issue was the non-allowance of TDS credit of Rs.22,20,182 due to a mismatch between the TDS credit appearing in Form 26AS and the amount claimed by the assessee. The assessee argued that although TDS was deducted by her employer from her salary/bonus, it was not deposited in time, leading to the disallowance of her TDS claim. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument and directed the AO to verify the facts and ensure that the assessee receives the appropriate TDS credit if it is confirmed that the TDS was deducted but not deposited by the employer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792446 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2025
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL SETHI
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Salary income; TDS

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.4392/Del/2025 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2021-22) Ramita Chaudhuri, Block C-1, Flat No.1002, The Legend, Sector-57, Gurgaon. PAN-AAPPC4405P Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-69(1), Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Anil Sethi, CA Department by Shri Krishna Kumar Ramawat, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03/12/2025 Date of Pronouncement 05/12/2025 O R D E R PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Gwalior (‘Ld. CIT(A)’ in short), dated 18.03.2025 in Appeal No. NFAC/2020-21/10197234 for Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. From the perusal of the record, it is seen that filing the appeal is delayed by 55 days, for which condonation application is filed. In the said application, it is stated that when the order of ld. CIT(A) was served upon the assessee she was residing abroad in Madrid, Spain and was not in India. She returned to India on 20th June, 2025 from Span. Due to this reason, the delay of 55 days was occurred in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee also filed an affidavit in support of the Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.4392 /Del/2025 Ramita Chaudhuri vs. ITO averments made in the application for condonation of delay. Considering the facts and explanation given in the application, we find that assessee has been able to demonstrate that there is reasonable cause in filing the appeal delayed. Considering these facts, we condoned the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication on merits. 3. Heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The sole issue in this appeal is with respect to not allowing the TDS credit of Rs.22,20,182/- being mismatch in the TDS credit appearing in From 26AS statement and as claimed by the assessee. 4. Before us, the Ld. AR of the assessee claimed that the assessee is having salary income and TDS was deducted by the employer, however, the TDS was not deposited in time, therefore, the CPC has disallowed the claim of TDS of Rs.22,20,182/-. The Ld. CIT(A) has considered the facts of the assessee and allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the AO for verification of the fact whether the TDS has been deposited by the employer in the Govt. Account and if the tax has been found paid to the credit of the Govt. Account, the credits of the TDS be allowed to the assessee. It is seen that in this case, the assessee was an employee with M/s Mahou India Private Ltd. at Gurugoan which is having PAN: AADCA5866A and TAN: RTKM08829C. The assessee claimed that a sum of Rs.83,54,035/- as bonus is received by her which was offered for tax in the year under appeal. Part of the bonus amount i.e. Rs. 23,54,035/- was released to the assessee after deduction TDS of Rs.8,07,900/- by the employer and TDS was duly deposited in the Central Govt. Account. The net amount of Rs.15,46,135/- was received by the assessee in January, 2021. On the remaining amount of bonus payable of Rs. 60,00,000/-, TDS of Rs.22,20,182/- was deducted by the employer and the net amount after TDS i.e. Rs.37,79,818/- stood credited in the bank account of the assessee 0n 28.01.2021, Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.4392 /Del/2025 Ramita Chaudhuri vs. ITO however it appears that till date the amount of TDS of Rs. 22,20,182/- so deducted by the employer was not deposited to the account of the Central Govt. The assessee also produced the salary slip indicating the TDS made by the employer on such payment of bonus. As this amount of TDS is not appearing in the 26As statement, therefore, credit of the same was not allowed. 5. In view of these facts, we direct the AO to verify whether the TDS has been deducted by the employer from the payment of salary/bonus to the assessee and if so, assessee should not be denied the claim of the TDS as it is the liability of the employer to deposit the TDS in the account of Central Govt. In case, the employer has not deposited the same within the prescribed time, the employee should not suffer for the failure on the part of the employer. The AO can take all the necessary actions as per law to recover the amount of TDS amount alongwith interest and penalty as per law from the employer, however, the necessary credit of the same should be given to the employee. Therefore, we direct the AO that after verification of the facts if it is found that TDS was deducted by the employer but not deposited to the Central Govt. Account necessary step be taken to recover the said amount, however, the assessee be allowed the credits of TDS, since, she is not at fault in this case. With these directions, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 6. As a result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order is pronounced in open court on 05/12/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (MANISH AGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 05/12/2025 Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.4392 /Del/2025 Ramita Chaudhuri vs. ITO PK/Sr. Ps Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "