Assessee, a foreign company, which is  engaged in investment activities managed from out of India. Assessee is  a beneficial owner of American Depository Receipts (ADRs) of Vedanta Ltd., which were held through a broker.  Thereafter, ADRs were compulsorily redeemed by Citibank, acting as depository participant for Vedanta Ltd.   Upon redemption, Citibank NA withheld tax at 43.68 per cent on gross proceeds as assessee did not have PAN. Later, assessee after obtaining PAN filed revised return and claimed TDS credit. Assessing Officer denied the  claim of assessee on ground that TDS was not reflected in Form 26AS.Commissioner (Appeals)  upheld the order of the AO, on ground that assessee’s non-compliance with rule 37BA was a sufficient basis for denial of TDS credit and dismissed appeal. On appeal the Tribunal held that   due to absence of assessee’s PAN at time of deduction, TDS credit was incorrectly attributed under category ‘without PAN’ or in name of broker, Credit Suisse AG  rather than assessee and this misattribution led to TDS credit not reflecting in assessee’s Form 26AS. Upon obtaining a PAN, assessee actively engaged with Citibank NA and Credit Suisse  AG to correct TDS attribution. Despite continuous communication and submission of necessary documents, including confirmations, these procedural corrections were not completed in time to reflect in assessee’s Form 26AS at stage of assessment. A taxpayer should not suffer due to procedural lapses caused by third parties, especially when taxpayer had acted in good faith and made all reasonable efforts to rectify situation. Substance of compliance, namely offering income to tax, should take precedence over procedural errors when assessing a taxpayer’s entitlement to TDS credit.  TDS credit, once deducted, should not be denied based on procedural failures, particularly those not attributable to taxpayer. The  assessee is  entitled to TDS credit as claimed. (AY. 2022-23)