PCIT vs. Nirmali Bhadra

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: See packaged judgment

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Form 26AS versus TDS certificate discrepancy: which income figure should form basis of assessment.
• What factual, statutory and procedural conditions control the relief?
• How does the operative order apply to the parties and the challenged proceeding?

Material facts and procedural background

Appearance: Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. ...for the appellant.

appearing for the appellant/revenue and Mr.Himangshu Kumar Roy,

Sengupta, learned Advocates for the respondent/assessee.

“On perusal of the same, it shows that the assessee for this AY (2010-11) (FY 2009-10) has received income of Rs.3,95,030/- and TDS of Rs.39,569/- has been deducted and deposited the same in the Government account. Thus, I note that there are two documents before me (i) Form 16A-TDS Certificate and (ii) Form 26AS, [which is downloaded from the Income- tax Department website], which shows that for the same assessment year (AY) two different figures from two sources. The AO has taken the figures from the TDS

Certificate issued by the said company (M/s. Uni pay) as gospel truth to make the impugned addition. The AO being a quasi judicial authority should be fair while framing the assessment of the assessee under the Act (income-tax). The AO had in his hand also Form 26AS, which reveals that an amount of Rs.3,95,030/- was credited in the assessee’s account for this AY (2010- 11) (FY 2009-10). TDS amount of Rs.39,569/- has been deducted and deposited in the Government Account. I find that Form 26AS is maintained by the Income-tax Department. In such a scenario, in the interest of justice and since it is second round of assessee’s appeal, and keeping in mind that there should be finality of the issue I am deciding as infra. First of all, Form 16A is generated by M/s. Unipay Marketing Pvt. Ltd. which is payer and the assessee who is the payee has no control over it. Even if the amount is paid it should have been accounted for in assessee’s bank account, which is not the case of the AO. Simply because there is difference in the claim of assessee in respect of TDS credit and the corresponding income, the AO has made the addition which cannot be accepted when the Form 26AS gives a different…

Appellant / assessee submissions

learned counsel assisted by Mr. Paban Kumar Roy and Mr. Bhaskar

Sengupta, learned Advocates for the respondent/assessee.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The packaged judgment does not separately label the respondent's submissions in an independently extractable passage. No contention is inferred; read the full order.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

We have heard Mr. Tilak Mitra, learned standing counsel

Tribunal, we find that the learned Tribunal had done an

Operative decision and relief

The result is recorded as Revenue appeal dismissed; no substantial question of law; stay application closed. The exact relief and qualifications are controlled by the final operative paragraphs of the packaged judgment.

Ratio and legal principle

• The packaged judgment addresses Form 26AS versus TDS certificate discrepancy: which income figure should form basis of assessment. The precise proposition must be read with the Court/Tribunal's reasoning and operative directions.
• Reliance depends on matching the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and material evidence recorded in the judgment.

Why this judgment matters

This decision is relevant to practitioners and affected parties dealing with form 26as versus tds certificate discrepancy: which income figure should form basis of assessment. Its value lies in showing how the adjudicating forum connected the applicable rule to the proved facts and procedural posture.

Practitioner action points

• Match the statutory version, jurisdiction, procedural stage and decisive evidence before relying on the result.
• Verify current appellate, review and SLP history and any later amendment or controlling authority.
• Attach the complete judgment to the working paper or filing and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition.

Does this case match your facts?

Section / provision impact

• See the statutory provisions identified in the packaged judgment.

Case network

Similar issue / useful comparison

• Bridge India Fund, New Delhi v. ACIT - ITAT Mumbai - I Bench
• SECUNDRABAD CLUB VS. C.I.T.-V - Supreme Court of India
• PCIT v. Indravadan Jain, HUF - Calcutta High Court

Different outcome / possible distinction

• ACIT CIR 6(1) VS ASAHI INFRA & PROJECTS LIMITED - Remanded / restored
• ITO 32(2)(3) VS MAYUR R KAMDAR - Dismissed

Full judgment and source control

Read / download packaged judgment record

Source class: Sanitized local full-judgment copy; official primary replacement pending · Repository status: Later-history status: verification on hold pending source confirmation