Non-recovery of income tax demand where tax has been deducted but not deposited by deductor-CBDT

Non-recovery of income tax demand where tax has been deducted but not deposited by deductor-CBDT

Non-enforcement of recovery of demand against the assessee where tax has been deducted but not deposited by the deductor .

Government of India
Ministry of Finance
Department of Revenue
Central Board of Direct Taxes

PRESS RELEASE

New Delhi, 11th March, 2016

The Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) had issued directions to the field offices that taxpayers whose tax has been deducted at source but not deposited to the Government’s account by the deductor, will not be asked to pay the demand to the extent tax has been deducted from his income. A letter to this effect was issued on 01.06.2015. Through this letter an embargo had been put on the direct demand against the assessees in cases where the tax demand is on account of tax-credit mismatch due to non-payment of TDS to the Government account by the deductor.

Instances have come to the notice of the Board that these directions are not being strictly followed in the field offices. An Office Memorandum(OM) has therefore been issued yesterday reiterating the contents of the letter.  It has been re-emphasized that the assessing officers shall not enforce demands created on account of mismatch of credit due to non-payment of TDS amount to the credit of the Government by the deductor.

The Office Memorandum dated 11.03.2016 is available on the website of the Departmentwww.incometaxindia.gov.in.

(Shefali Shah)

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Media and Technical Policy)
and Official Spokesperson, CBDT

• AO is under an obligation to assign reasons for rejecting explanation of the assessee
• CBIC issues SoP for clearance of imported goods through Foreign Post Offices
• Sale deed executed with full knowledge of only part consideration paid, not void – SC
• No fault in serving notice to last known address when PAN data was not updated – ITAT
• Investment by firm through capital introduced by partners cannot be treated as unexplained