Vaghjibhai S. Bishnoi vs. ITO (Gujarat High Court)

DATE: (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 10, 2013 (Date of publication)

Click here to download the judgement (Vaghjibhai_TDS_Harassment.pdf)

Department’s practice of not giving prompt & full credit for TDS condemned

The assessee filed a return of income in which he claimed a refund of Rs. 2.11 lakhs. An intimation u/s 143(1) was issued by the CPC Bangalore in which credit for certain TDS certificates was omitted to be given. The assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 before the AO which was not acted upon. The assessee filed a writ petition to challenge the neglect of the AO to give proper TDS credit. Before the High Court the AO argued inter alia that as the details of the e-return had not been transferred to him by the CPC, he was not authorized to accede to any request of the assessee. It was also claimed that the assessee had not filed full details relating to the claim. HELD by the High Court allowing the Petition:

Form 26AS, available on the department’s website, clearly reflects the assessee’s entitlement to credit for TDS. Instead of giving credit for the TDS, the department has adamantly continued to take the stand that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to furnish details. We are not impressed with such a stand. Computerization is with the object to facilitate easy access to the assessee and make the system more viable and transparent. In the event of any shortcoming of software programme or any genuine mistake, the Department is expected to respond to such inadvertence spontaneously by rectifying the mistake and give corresponding relief to the assessee. Instead of that, even when it is being brought to the notice of the Department by the assessee, by a rectification application and subsequent communication, not only it has chosen not to rectify the mistake, but, the lack of inter departmental coordination has driven the assessee to this Court for getting his legitimate due. This attitude for sure does not find favour with the Court, as more responsive and litigant centric system is expected; particularly in the era of computerization. Tax payers friendly regime is promised in this electronic age. For want of necessary coordination between the two departments, the assessee cannot be expected to be sent from pillar to the post. If the Centralized Processing Center meant for return processing, accounts, refund, storage of data etc. adds to the difficulties of the Tax payers, due to lack of distribution of work between back office and front office, and that too, after having been pointed out the actual error, a serious re-look is expected.

4 comments on “Vaghjibhai S. Bishnoi vs. ITO (Gujarat High Court)
  1. DEEPAK SONI says:

    The Income tax department and majority of its officers have been working in the most shameless manner and openly defy the provisions of the law and create maximum possible harassment to the taxpayers by resorting to the rules which have been never made to harass the tax payers.The officers are fully protected by their seniors and no action is ever taken against the erring officers. They show complete disregard and defiance to the decisions of the Supreme Courts and the High Courts without any fear of any action against them.They are highly arrogant,highly ignorant and highly corrupt and always ready to please their superiors.

  2. Suhas Deshpande, Advocate says:

    What Deepak Soni has said is absolute truth. I have cases where the CIT(A) has conveniently ignored the decisions of Jurisdictional Tribunal and even Jurisdictional High Court wherein both the ITAT and High Court have rendered decisions in favour of the assesse for earlier years. Despite this, in the case of the same assesse, for subsequent years the CIT(A) has ignored the High Court and ITAT decisions and confirmed the AO’s order. I know CIT’s action amounts to contempt of court. Even the Department knows of this but there is no action on the erring CIT(A).

  3. vswami says:


    The further reported court order is self-speaking and yet again forthright in the view taken.

    In the almost totally computerized environment, and further, as per the recent directive, taxpayer is required to file the return strictly in the prescribed form. His obligation is confined to the specific requirements as spelt out and warranted. As regards TDS, accordingly, he ought to be regarded, with no scope for any contrary expectation or dispute, to have fulfilled his obligation in entirety if he has furnished the TDS particulars in the manner as required in the respective schedules, and on the strength of the statutory certificates furnished by the deductors. Nothing more nothing less; for that matter, it being a ‘paper-less’ or annexure-less’ one, there is no way he could furnish any more info. or details, or supporting documents, even if left to himself, would, as a matter of prudence and by way of abundant caution, very much wish to.

    Once tax return filed is so complete as aforesaid, there is prima facie no rationale for blaming the taxpayer on the ground of failure to furnish any more ‘details’; especially of TDS. As made clear by the rulings of courts, the Revenue has, therefore, no locus standi or cause of action whatsoever against taxpayer.

    It appears, often, the clinching and convincingly binding mandate in Section 203 is unwittingly or otherwise over-sighted or given a go-bye, thereby taxpayer is meted out mindlessly with unsavory and harsh consequences. It is high time that sense of fair play and good faith is brought to bear; and the AOs are prevailed not to in any manner act as to create any unfriendly demeanor or situation.

    Incidentally, one is still not clear as to whether, after set-up of the CPC, who is really and effectively the AO – is it the AC-in-charge at CPC or the jurisdictional AO as before? The doubt arises because of the actual fact that Intimation u/s 143(1) raising a demand is found to be issued/sent directly by the former.

    Clarity on this aspect is solicited; as it is a must for taxpayer to exactly know who he should turn to for redress of any grievance; further, for being sure whom to imp-lead, in the event he is obligated to eventually resort to any legal action.

  4. S PRAKASH says:

    One can not understand whether the Court Orders and the CBDT recent instructions in view of the Hon’Delhi High Court decision are binding on the CPC and the Income Tax Department.Now a days the picture is very very cler that the CPC and the Income Tax Department is not maintaining a good relationship.The CPC sends mail for demand and rectification rejection letters and the jurisdictional assessing officers say that the data of the CPC is not available to them for any alterlation or rectification between the CPC and the Assessing Officers the poor assessee has been sandwitched and CPC IS EATING THE CAKE at the cost of tax payers.Where is the end for this?What respect the department gives for the orders of the court?Is the department is suprem or the courts? These fundamental questions are being raised even by the small assessees and to answer them it is very difficult.If the depatment and CPC can not obay the orders of the High Court them whom should one go for the grievance,refund,wrong credits, wrong PAN in the challans by the Bankers, TDS wrong credit,Wrong PAN/TAN while uploading the TDS/TCS,etc., etc., NOT EVEN GOD CAN SAVE US BECAUSE HE MAY GET A NOTICE FOR THIS SERVICE.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *