Assessee, a salaried employee, filed his income tax return for assessment year 2013-14, reporting a gross salary from its employer-company with TDS deducted. However, a significant discrepancy was found between TDS amount deducted by employer and amount reflected in Form 26AS obtained from Income Tax Department website. Despite tax being deducted, a portion of amount had not been transmitted to Income Tax Department by employer. Consequently, assessee was deprived of receiving credit for full TDS amount, leading to a demand notice issued by income tax department, inclusive of interest under Sections 234B and 234C. On writ allowing the petition the Court held that in case of an assessee whose tax has been deducted at source but not deposited to Government’s account by deductor, deductee-assessee shall not be called upon to pay demand to extent tax has been deducted from his income.  Further, section 205 puts a bar on direct demand against assessee in such cases and demand on account of tax credit mismatch in such situations cannot be enforced coercively.Therefore, department should not deny benefit of tax deducted at source by employer during relevant financial years to assessee. Followed in Taylor v. Taylor (1876) 1 Ch D 426, it was laid down that where a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way the thing must be done in that way or not at all. Other methods of performance are necessarily forbidden. This doctrine has often been applied to Courts. Lord Roche in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor AIR 1936 PC 253 followed the aforesaid principle. Subsequently, the said principle has been well recognized by the apex Court and is holding the field till today. (AY. 2013-14)