Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

ITA No. 676/JP/15 (Assessment Year: 2010-11) and ITA No. 991/JP/15 (Assessment Year: 2011-12)

Advocates

Assessee by: Shri Subhash Porwal (CA)
Revenue by: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. CIT)

Judges

Kul Bharat, J.M.
Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M.

Acts

provisions of Section 190, Section 199, Section 206C and the Rule 37BA(2)(i) of Income tax Rules.Section 190
provisions of sub-section (1) of section 4.Section 199
provision of section 199 r.w.r. 37BA. These provisions
recovery.Rule 37BA(2)(i) of Income tax Rules
provisions of section 199 r.w. Rule 37BA
provision of section 199/rule 37BA
Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2003
sub-section (1A) of section 192,
section 199 ad Rule 37BA
sub-rule (2) of Rule 37BA
section 199 r.w. Rule
Sub Rule (4)

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Tribunal Opinion Summary (TCS/TDS credit — M/s Jai Ambey Wines)

Factual and Procedural Background

These are two appeals filed by the assessee (a partnership firm named M/s Jai Ambey Wines) against orders of the Id. CIT(A), Ajmer dated 01.06.2015 (Assessment Year 2010-11) and dated 05.11.2015 (Assessment year 2012-13). The appeals were heard together because they raised common issues.

For A.Y. 2010-11 the Assessing Officer (AO), in an order passed under section 154, rejected the appellant's claim for credit of tax collected at source (TCS) amounting to Rs. 4,92,071.92 on the ground that the TCS certificates were in the names of various individuals and carried different PANs. The appellant argued that the shop licences were issued in individual names to the partners but sales were accounted in the name of the firm and that the partners had not claimed the TCS credit personally. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal observing that the TCS certificates named individuals and that section 199/Rule 37BA relate to TDS and not to TCS.

For the other assessment year (referred to in different parts of the opinion as A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13), a similar claim for credit of TCS issued in individual partners' names was rejected by the lower authorities. The assessee contended the firm's accounts incorporated the partners' sales and purchases and relied on case law in support.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the assessee's claim for credit of TCS/TDS by not having regard to the provisions of section 199 and Rule 37BA (as relied upon by the assessee) and related principles.
Whether credit for tax collected at source (TCS) in the names of individual partners can be given to the partnership firm when the corresponding income (sales/purchases) has been accounted for and brought to tax in the hands of the firm.
Whether the AO/CIT(A) were justified in denying TCS credit where TCS certificates were issued in the names and PANs of individuals (partners) and no TDS/TCS rules specifically analogous to Rule 37BA exist for TCS in the Income-tax Rules.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's (assessee / ld. AR) Arguments

The assessee is a partnership firm formed by partners who originally held liquor shop licences in their individual names; a partnership deed dated 22.05.2009 was executed and the firm M/s Jai Ambey Wines carried on the business.
All purchases and sales under each shop were shown in the name of the firm; the assessment under section 143(3) treated the individual members' sales and purchases as that of the firm and audited accounts were produced to support this.
Because the firm's accounts include the complete sales and purchases of all partners, the TCS deducted in the names of individual partners should be allowed as credit to the firm, particularly since none of the partners claimed TCS credit in their individual returns.
The assessee relied on judicial precedents in support, specifically CIT-I v. Bhooratnam & Co. (cited with various citations) and decisions of coordinate benches (ACIT v. Krishanlal Meel; ITO v. Harish Kumar Sachdeva) purportedly deciding identical issues in favour of the assessee.

Revenue's (AO / ld. CIT(A) / ld. DR) Arguments

The AO rejected the claim because TCS certificates were in the names of various persons with distinct PANs and concluded that it was not a mistake apparent from record under section 154.
The CIT(A) and the ld. DR emphasized that provisions of section 199 and Rule 37BA relate to tax deducted at source (TDS) and not to tax collected at source (TCS); there are no specific provisions in the Income-tax Act or Rules (analogous to Rule 37BA) governing credit of TCS in favour of a person other than the person in whose name TCS certificate was issued.
The CIT(A) also noted that the assessee had not fulfilled the conditions of the proviso to sub-Rule (2) of Rule 37BA and that the claim that all partners' income was included in the firm's income was "not fully verifiable from the documents filed by the appellant."

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
CIT-I v. Bhooratnam & Co. (cited as (2013) 216 Taxman 6 / 29 Taxman.com 275 (AP))	Principle that where income shown in a TDS certificate was offered to tax by the assessee, TDS credit is allowable on the basis of the TDS certificates irrespective of the fact that the TDS certificate was not in the assessee's name.	The Tribunal relied on this authority (and an alternative citation of the same decision reproduced later) as a guiding principle that credit should follow the person who is assessed to tax on the corresponding income even if certificates are in another name.
CIT v. Bhooratnam & company (cited as (2013) 262 CTR 405 (AP))	Same principle as above (different reporter citation appearing in the opinion).	The opinion reproduces the quoted holding and treats it as directly applicable precedent supporting allowance of credit when income is offered to tax by the person claiming credit.
ACIT v. Krishanlal Meel (Coordinate Bench — ITA Nos. 370, 401/Jodh/2015 decided 04.09.2015; also cited as ACIT, Circle-2, Udaipur v. Shri Krishnalal Meel & party (supra))	Coordinate Bench decision applying the Bhooratnam principle to allow credit of TDS/TCS issued in names of individual members in favour of an AOP or firm when the income was assessed in the hands of the AOP/firm and members had not claimed credit.	The Tribunal cited and reproduced the Coordinate Bench's reasoning and treated that decision as supportive authority for granting credit to an assessee in whose hands the corresponding income is assessed.
ITO v. Harish Kumar Sachdeva (ITA Nos. 416, 826/JP/2012 decided 14.03.2016)	Decision of the Jaipur ITAT Bench on an identical issue (as cited by the assessee).	The assessee relied on this decision as another instance where the Tribunal had decided the issue in favour of the assessee; the present Tribunal noted it as part of the assessee's supporting authorities.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Tribunal first identified and referred to the relevant statutory provisions relied upon by the parties: section 190, section 199, section 206C of the Income-tax Act and Rule 37BA(2)(i) of the Income-tax Rules (as amended). The opinion sets out those provisions in extenso where relevant.

The Tribunal's legal analysis proceeded along these principal lines (as expressed in the opinion):

Section 199 and Rule 37BA deal with tax deducted at source (TDS) and provide that credit for TDS may be given to a person other than the deductee in certain circumstances (for example, where the deductee files a declaration and the deductor reports the deduction in the other person's name).
The Tribunal observed that TDS is "nothing but tax" and that credit for TDS should go to the person in whose hands the corresponding income is rightfully and finally assessed to tax irrespective of the person in whose name the TDS was originally deducted or the TDS certificate issued.
Examining section 206C read with section 190, the Tribunal found that tax collected at source (TCS) is, in substance, a tax on income collected at source in respect of specified goods/transactions and that its nature is essentially identical to TDS for present purposes.
Consequently, the Tribunal held that credit for TCS should be given to the assessee who is finally and lawfully assessed to tax in respect of the corresponding income on which TCS was collected, even though the Rules do not contain specific provisions exactly mirroring Rule 37BA for TCS.
The Tribunal emphasized that the absence of specific procedural rules analogous to Rule 37BA for TCS does not, by itself, disentitle the assessee to claim credit where the law recognises the tax and the corresponding income has been assessed in the hands of the claimant.
On the particular facts before it, however, the Tribunal noted that the AO had not made any finding of fact as to whether the corresponding income (in respect of which TCS was collected in the names of the partners) had actually been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee firm. The CIT(A) had recorded that this claim was not fully verifiable from documents for one of the years.
Because of that absence of factual determination, the Tribunal did not directly allow the TCS credit but set the matter aside to the AO with directions to verify whether the corresponding income had been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee firm; if, after verification, the AO finds that the corresponding income has been brought to tax in the firm's hands, the AO is directed to allow the TCS credit to the firm.
Separately, the Tribunal observed that the assessee had sought TDS/TCS credit of Rs. 11,31,416 in A.Y. 2010-11 but that no arguments were made before the Tribunal on TDS and the ground concerning TDS credit had not been pressed before the CIT(A); consequently that ground was dismissed as not pressed.

Holding and Implications

Core Ruling: The Tribunal SET ASIDE the matters to the file of the Assessing Officer with directions to verify whether the corresponding income (in respect of which TCS has been collected in the names of individual partners) has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee firm, and if so, to allow the credit for TCS in the hands of the assessee firm.

The direct consequences and practical implications stated in the opinion are:

The AO is to make a factual verification: if the corresponding income has been assessed in the hands of the firm, the AO must allow credit for the TCS to the firm.
The ground relating to alleged non-grant of TDS credit for Rs. 11,31,416 in A.Y. 2010-11 was dismissed as not pressed because the assessee did not argue TDS before the Tribunal and had not pressed that issue before the CIT(A).
The Tribunal recorded that TCS is, in nature, identical to TDS for purposes of credit and that absence of a specific Rule analogous to Rule 37BA does not prevent an assessee from claiming credit where the corresponding income is taxed in the assessee's hands.
Result recorded in the opinion: the appeals for A.Y. 2010-11 are "partly allowed for statistical purposes" and for A.Y. 2011-12 (as referred to in the concluding line of the opinion) "is allowed for statistical purposes." The operative practical direction, however, is the remand to the AO for verification and consequential allowance of credit if the AO's verification supports the assessee's claim.

Note: This summary follows only the contents and formulations contained in the provided opinion. No additional facts or inferences beyond the text of the opinion have been introduced.

Show full summary ...

To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Jai Ambey Wines v. Acit .

Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M.:— These are two appeals filed by the assessee against the order of Id. CIT(A), Ajmer dated 01.06.2015 for Assessment Year 2010-11 and dated 05.11.2015 for Assessment year 2012-13 respectively. Since common issues are involved in both these appeals, the same were heard together and disposed off by this consolidated order.

The assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:

In ITA No. 676/JP/15 (A.Y. 2010-11):

(1) That under the facts of the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting application filed u/s 155(14)/154 without appreciating the facts and not considering provision of section 199/rule 37BA for credit of TDS/TCS.

(2) That under the facts of the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in non-granting TDS/TCS credit of Rs. 11,31,416/- without considering the facts.

In ITA No. 991/JP/15 (A.Y. 2011-12):

(I) That under the facts of the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has erred non granting the credit of TCS credit claimed for members though their sales/purchase considered in hands of firm and not considering provision of section 199/rule 37BA for credit of TDS/TCS.

2. In respect of A.Y. 2010-11, briefly the facts of the case are that the AO in his order passed u/s 154 of the Act has rejected the claim of the appellant in respect of tax collected at source of Rs. 4,92,071/- for the reason that the TCS certificates are in different names and carry different PANs. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and contended that the licence of liquor were issued by the Excise Department to various persons whose names have been mentioned in the TCS certificates. However, these persons are members of the firm in the name of M/s Jai Ambey Wines where the sales have been accounted and the credit for TCS should be given to the appellant firm as these individuals have not claimed the credit of the TCS. The ld. CIT(A) however did not agreed to the contentions of the ld. AR and his relevant findings are contained as under:

“2.1 I have considered the contentions of the appellant as well as order of the AO. It is seen that the AO in the order passed u/s 154 has rejected the claim of credit in respect of tax collected at source of Rs. 4,92,071/-. The TCS certificates submitted by the assessee were as under:

1. RSBCL, Jaipur Rs. 73,662.39 (Sh. Ashok Kumar) 2. RSBCL, Jaipur Rs. 23,635.14 (Sh. Anand Kumar) 3. RSBCL, Jaipur Rs.83,848.82 (Sh. Veer Kr. Srivastava) 4. RSBCL, Jaipur Rs. 84,850.03 (Sh. Sriram Jaiswal) 5. RSBCL, Jaipur Rs. 94,604.02 (Sh. Hari Narain Singh) 6. RSBCL, Jaipur Rs. 1,12,241.52 (Sh. Anil Srivastava) 7. Dist. Excise Officer, Jaipur Rs. 12,568.00 (Sh. Anand Kumar) 8. Raj. State G.S.M, Jaipur Rs. 6,662.00 (Sh. Anand Kumar) Rs. 4,92,071.92

In the order passed by the AO, it has been mentioned that it is not a mistake apparent from the record.

In this context, it may be mentioned that above TCS certificates have been issued mainly by the RSBCL, Jaipur in name of various persons as mentioned above. The assessee's contention is that the shop license of the liquor was issued by the excise department to above persons, hence the TCS has been deducted in their names. However, these persons are members of the firm in name of M/s Jai Ambey Wines where the sales have been accounted. So the credit of the TCS may be given to the appellant firm as these individual have not claimed the credit of the TCS.

In this regard, it may be mentioned that as per provisions of section 206C (4), credit of the TCS is to be given to the person from where the amount has been collected and in respect of whom statement has been filed as per provisions of section 206C(5) of the IT Act. In the present case, the above TCS certificates are in name of above mentioned persons who are having their individual PAN numbers. Apparently the credit is to be given to the persons in whose names TCS certificates have been issued. Further, the assessee has relied upon the provision of section 199 r.w.r. 37BA. These provisions relate to tax deducted at sources (TDS) and are not relevant in respect of tax collected at source (TCS). Further the above issue is not a mistake apparent from the record as mentioned by the AO. In view of the above discussion, the assessee's appeal is dismissed.

2.2 Similar facts pattern is noted in A.Y. 2012-13 wherein the contentions of the assessee were again rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) and the relevant observations are contained at para 4.3 of his order which is reproduced as under:

“I have gone through the statement of facts, grounds of appeal and written submissions carefully. It is seen from the detailed submission made by the appellant that the TCS was made in the names of partners of the appellant firm and not in the name of the appellant. The appellant has relied mainly on section 199 r.w. Rule 37BA.

It can be seen that both section 199 ad Rule 37BA speak about the tax deducted at source and not TCS. Further, the rule 37BA it is clearly mentioned that credit for the tax deducted at source shall be given to a person to whom payment has been made or credit has been given (deductee) on the basis of information relating to deduction of tax furnished by the deductor to the income tax authority or the person authorised by such authority. In the case under consideration, the deductees were partners of the appellant firm and the deductor has furnished information stating that tax has been collected at source in the names of partners of the appellant firm. As far as sub-rule (2) of Rule 37BA is concerned, the appellant has not fulfilled the conditions laid down in the proviso to sub-Rule (2). Therefore, no credit can be given to the appellant. Sub Rule (4) also states that credit for the tax deducted at sources shall be granted on the basis of information relating to deduction of tax furnished by the deductor to the income tax authority or the person authorised by such authority. As in the case under consideration, the deductor has informed that names of the person in respect of whom the tax has been collected at source are names of partners of the appellant firm, therefore, I am of the considered view that the AO was justified in not giving credit of TCS claimed by the assessee. The appellant has filed copy of the order of CIT(A), Ajmer dated 07.03.2012 but with due respect to my predecessor, for the reasons discussed above, I do not agree with his view of this issue. Other decisions relied upon by the appellant have been given on different set of facts and are not applicable to the case under consideration. Further, the claim of the appellant that all the income of partners of the firm has been include in the income of the appellant is also not fully verifiable from the documents filed by the appellant. Accordingly I am of the considered view that no credit for the TCS can be given to the appellant. Hence the ground of appeal of the appellant is dismissed.”

2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted as under:

(1) The assessee is a partnership firm and is engaged in retail trading of Country Liquor, IMFL and Beer Shops at Jaipur & Ajmer districts. The licences were allotted in individual names of partners as per Policy of Excise Department government of Rajasthan. But due to economy reasons all the members joint by became Associations of Persons executed a Partnership deeds dated 22.05.2009 to form a firm to carry on the business (to run shops allotted individually in joint venture) named M/s Jai Ambey Wines.

(2) That all the purchases under each shop as per terms of licence were shown as purchases in name of the firm & accordingly sales was also recorded in firm's name. The ld. JCIT, Range-2 Ajmer has also accepted this fact and has made the assessment completed u/s 143(3) incorporating whole of such individual member's sales and purchases as that of the firm. The copy of audited accounts for the year are as enclosed with partner's copy of account duly confirmed.

(3) Thus when complete sales, purchases of all members/partners considered in hands of firm, than credit for TCS of all individual partners should also be granted in hand of the firm, since none of the partners have considered/taken credit in their personal hands of such TCS deducted.

(4) That the above view has been confirmed by Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in case of CIT-I v. Bhooratnam & Co., (2013) 216 Taxman 6/29 Taxman.com 275 (AP).

(5) That the decision of Hon'ble Jodhpur ITAT Bench in the case of ACIT v. Krishanlal Meel in ITA No. 370, 401/Jodh/2015 decided on 04.09.2015 wherein identical issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Bench in favour of the assessee.

(6) That the decision of Hon'ble Jaipur ITAT Bench in the case of ITO v. Harish Kumar Sachdeva, in ITA No. 416, 826/JP/2012 which was decided on 14.03.2016 wherein identical issue has been decided by the Hon'ble Bench in favour of the assessee.

2.4 The relevant finding of the Coordinate Bench in ACIT v. Shri Krishanlal Meel & Party (supra) is reproduced as under:

“(8) We have considered the rival submissions, gone through the orders of the authorities below and carefully perused entire material placed on record. In so far as the merit of case is concerned, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT v. Bhooratnam & company reported at (2013) 262 CTR 405 (AP) wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under:

“Where income shown in the TDS certificate was offered to tax by the assessee then TDS credit is allowable on the basis of TDS mentioned in the TDS certificates irrespective of the fact that TDS certificate was not in assessee's name”

(9) The facts and circumstances in the instant case are exactly identical. Furthermore, the findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A) to the effect that the members of AOP has not claimed any TDS/TCS in the individual returns, therefore, the assessee AOP is entitled for credit of TCS/TDS in respect of income earned by the AOP. The findings recorded by the ld. CIT(A) has not been controverted by the ld. DR by bringing any cogent material on record. Accordingly we do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusion arrived at by the ld. CIT(A) in directing the AO to allow credit of TCS/TDS issued in the name of individual members in the hands of the assessee AOP after due verification and satisfaction. Facts and circumstances being pari materia similar in all the cases of all the assesses, following the reasons given hereinabove, we dismiss all the appeals of the Revenue.”

2.5 The ld. DR is heard who has supported the order of the AO as well as the ld. CIT(A) and stated that unlike provisions of section 199 r.w. Rule 37BA which are in respect of credit for tax deducted at sources (TDS), there are no specific provisions contained in the IT Act in respect of tax collected at source(TCS).

2.6 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. In order to appreciate the arguments, it would be relevant to refer to the provisions of Section 190, Section 199, Section 206C and the Rule 37BA(2)(i) of Income tax Rules.

Section 190 reads as under:

“(1) Notwithstanding that the regular assessment in respect of any income is to be made in a later assessment year, the tax on such income shall be payable by deduction or collection at source or by advance payment or by payment under sub-section (1A) of section 192, as the case may be, in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.

(2) Nothing in this section shall prejudice the charge of tax on such income under the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 4.”

Section 199 reads as under:

“(1) Any deduction made in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Chapter and paid to the Central Government shall be treated as a payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income the deduction was made, or of the owner of the security, or of the depositor or of the owner of property or of the unit-holder, or of the shareholder, as the case may be.

(2) Any sum referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192 and paid to the Central Government shall be treated as the tax paid on behalf of the person in respect of whose income such payment of tax has been made.

(3) The Board may, for the purposes of giving credit in respect of tax deducted or tax paid in terms of the provisions of this Chapter, make such rules as may be necessary, including the rules for the purposes of giving credit to a person other than those referred to in sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) and also the assessment year for which such credit may be given.”

Section 206C reads as under:

“(1) Every person, being a seller shall, at the time of debiting of the amount payable by the buyer to the account of the buyer or at the time of receipt of such amount from the said buyer in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, collect from the buyer of any goods of the nature specified in column (2) of the Table below, a sum equal to the percentage, specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table, of such amount as income-tax:

[TABLE]

Sl. No. Nature of goods Percentage (1) (2) (3) (i) Alcoholic Liquor for human consumption One per cent (ii) Tendu leaves Five per cent (iii) Timber obtained under a forest lease Two and one-half per cent (iv) Timber obtained by any mode other than under a forest lease Two and one-half per cent (v) Any other forest produce not being timber or tendu leaves Two and one-half per cent (vi) Scrap One per cent (vii) Minerals, being coal or lignite or iron ore One per cent

Provided that every person, being a seller shall at the time, during the period beginning on the 1st day of June, 2003 and ending on the day immediately preceding the date on which the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2003 comes into force, of debiting of the amount payable by the buyer to the account of the buyer or of receipt of such amount from the said buyer in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, collect from the buyer of any goods of the nature specified in column (2) of the Table as it stood immediately before the 1st day of June, 2003, a sum equal to the percentage, specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of the said Table, of such amount as income-tax in accordance with the provisions of this section as they stood immediately before the 1st day of June, 2003.

(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no collection of tax shall be made in the case of a buyer, who is resident in India, if such buyer furnishes to the person responsible for collecting tax, a declaration in writing in duplicate in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner to the effect that the goods referred to in column (2) of the aforesaid Table are to be utilised for the purposes of manufacturing, processing or producing articles or things or for the purposes of generation of power and not for trading purposes.

(1B) The person responsible for collecting tax under this section shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner one copy of the declaration referred to in sub-section (1A) on or before the seventh day of the month next following the month in which the declaration is furnished to him.

(2) The power to recover tax by collection under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1C) or subsection (1D)] shall be without prejudice to any other mode of recovery.”

Rule 37BA(2)(i) of Income tax Rules as amended by the Income Tax (Eight amendment) Rules, 2011 reads as under:

“Where under any provisions of the Act, the whole or any part of income on which tax has been deducted at source is assessable in the hands of a person other than the deductee, credit for the whole or any part of tax deducted at source, as the case may, shall be given to the other person and not to the deductee.

Provided that the deductee files a declaration with the deductor and deductor reports the tax deduction in the name of the other person in the information relating to deduction referred to in sub-rule (1).”

2.7 The essence of the above stated provisions and corresponding rules is that the tax deducted at source (TDS) is nothing but tax, and credit for TDS should go to the person in whose hands the income is rightfully and finally assessed to tax in accordance with law irrespective of the person in whose hands the TDS has been deducted and TDS certificate has been issued at first place. If we look at the provisions of section 206C read with section 190 of the Act, the nature of tax collection at source (TCS) is exactly identical to TDS and it is in the nature of tax on income which has been collected at source in respect of specified business and the nature of goods as specified in section 206C of the Act. In light of above, the credit for TCS should be given to the assessee which is finally and lawfully assessed to tax in respect of the corresponding income on which TCS has been collected. The fact that there are no specific rules which have been provided in the Income tax Rules in respect of credit of TCS in such situations on the lines of Rule 37BA, in our view, doesn't disentitle the assessee to claim credit of TCS in whose hands the income is finally assessed to tax. The reason for the same is that the nature of TCS is nothing but tax which has been statutorily recognised in the Income tax Act, and the Rules are enabling and procedural in nature and absence thereof cannot result in denial of credit of TCS. This issue also find supports from the decision of the Coordinate Bench in case of ACIT, Circle-2, Udaipur v. Shri Krishnalal Meel & party (supra).

2.8 In the instant case, the ld. AR has submitted that the income has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee firm and accordingly the credit for TCS should be granted to the assessee firm. In this regard, we find that there is no findings of fact by the AO in this regard and in A.Y. 2012-13 the ld. CIT(A) has stated that “the claim of the appellant that all the income of partners of the firm has been include in the income of the appellant is also not fully verifiable from the documents filed by the appellant.”

2.9 In light of above discussions, we set-aside the matter in both the years to the file of the AO with the directions to verify whether the corresponding income in respect of which TCS has been claimed by the assessee firm has been brought to tax in the hands of the asessee firm or not. Where after due examination and verification, the AO find that the corresponding income has been brought to tax in the hands of the assessee firm, the AO is directed to allow credit for TCS in the hands of the assessee firm.

2.10 We may add that in AY 2010-11, the appellant has taken ground in respect of non grant of TDS/TCS credit of Rs 11,31,416. However, there are no arguments made by the ld AR in respect of TDS during the course of hearing and the whole thrust of the arguments as noted above were towards nongrant of TCS credit. Further, it is noted that non-grant of TDS credit has not been pressed before the ld CIT(A) as well. In light of above, ground of appeal for AY 2010-11 so far as it relates to TDS credit is dismissed as non-pressed.

In the result the appeals filed by the assessee for AY 2010-11 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and for AY 2011-12, is allowed for statistical purposes.

Jai Ambey Wines v. Acit .

Tribunal Opinion Summary (TCS/TDS credit — M/s Jai Ambey Wines)

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's (assessee / ld. AR) Arguments

Revenue's (AO / ld. CIT(A) / ld. DR) Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Jai Ambey Wines v. Acit .

Comments