New Delhi: The Central Information Commission (CIC) has advised the Income Tax Department to “institutionalise a taxpayer-friendly mechanism”, flagging that taxpayers are often made to run from “pillar to post” while seeking resolution of their grievances.
The observation came in an order passed by Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari while disposing of a complaint related to ‘discrepancies’ in TDS credited to the applicant over several assessment years.
The commission noted that in several such cases, taxpayers are repeatedly forced to pursue authorities to reconcile discrepancies.
“In such cases, the assessee is often made to run from pillar to post for reconciliation of discrepancies between Form 16 issued by the Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) and Form 26AS maintained by the Income Tax Department, without first fixing responsibility on the concerned deductor/DDO who is statutorily obliged to correctly deposit and report TDS,” the commission said in its order.
The CIC further observed that officials sometimes take the “path of least resistance” by pursuing the individual taxpayer instead of the deducting authority responsible for reporting tax deductions.
“It is as bad a practice as it can get because an honest taxpayer is being harassed by being made to run around whereas the wrong doer DDO, being a fellow government officer, is let off unscathed,” the order noted.
Advising systemic reform, the commission said it would be appropriate to “institutionalise a taxpayer-friendly mechanism in such cases” so that discrepancies are addressed in a more accountable and transparent manner.
The CIC said the concerned deductor should first be asked to explain the discrepancy and confirm whether tax has been duly deducted, deposited and reported. Only after such verification, if the fault lies with the taxpayer, should both the assessee and the deductor be heard together to resolve the issue in a fair and transparent manner, it said.
However, the commission found no mala fide intent or deliberate denial of information by the Central Public Information Officer in the case and dismissed the complaint, noting that replies had been furnished based on records available with the department.
