The Central Information Commission (CIC) has recommended that the Income Tax Department “institutionalise a taxpayer-friendly mechanism”, highlighting that taxpayers frequently run from “pillar to post” to voice their grievances, PTI reported.
The observation was made in an order issued by Information Commissioner Vinod Kumar Tiwari while resolving a complaint related to ‘discrepancies’ in TDS credited to the applicant over several assessment years.
The commission observed that in many such cases, taxpayers are consistently compelled to pursue authorities to resolve 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 report quoted the commission’s order.
Path of least resistance
The CIC also observed that officials sometimes choose the “path of least resistance” by targeting the individual taxpayer rather than the 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.
The commission advised that systemic reform would be suitable to “institutionalise a taxpayer-friendly mechanism in such cases” to address discrepancies in a more accountable and transparent manner.
The CIC stated that the relevant deductor should first be asked to clarify the discrepancy and confirm if the tax has been properly deducted, deposited, and reported. Following this verification, if the fault is with the taxpayer, both the assessee and the deductor should be heard together to resolve the issue in a fair and transparent manner, the commission was quoted as saying.
The commission discovered 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.
