Form 26AS does not show my TDS but I hold the deductor's certificate. Must the officer still verify and give me credit?
Yes. Issued to give effect to the Delhi High Court's directions in Court On Its Own Motion v. CIT [2013] 352 ITR 273 (Delhi), the Instruction tells the assessing officer that where the assessee produces the TDS certificate as evidence against a mismatched amount, the officer must verify whether the deductor has paid the tax into the Government account and, if he has, give the credit. The Allahabad High Court has since decided a refund case on the strength of it.
Decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Government of India) on 2013-07-08, reported as Instruction No. 5/2013, F.No. 275/03/2013-IT(B), dated 8 July 2013. It bears on section 199, section 203, section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in TDS Defaults, Refunds, Interest & Condonation and Assessment & Scrutiny matters.
This converts the 26AS mismatch from a dead end into a duty to enquire. The usual departmental answer - 'the system shows no credit, take it up with your deductor' - is not open to the officer once the certificate is on the file. The Instruction also arms him with the means: he can check with the assessing officer having TDS jurisdiction, or issue notice to the deductor to file a correction statement. It is not only paper. In U.P. Rajya Nirman Sahakari Sangh Ltd. v. Union of India [2025] 179 taxmann.com 615 (Allahabad), decided 8 October 2025, a society whose TDS refunds had been refused because the amounts did not appear in Form 26AS succeeded: the Court set the Instruction out, noted that it rests on Court On Its Own Motion, and decided in light of that judgment and the Instruction that documents proving deduction must be acted on.
Binding on the department, not on the assessee or the courts. An assessee may rely on a circular that is beneficial to them.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
Assessees holding valid TDS certificates were being denied credit because the deductor's statement did not match, or did not appear at all, in the departmental database behind Form 26AS. The Delhi High Court took up the problem on its own motion in Court On Its Own Motion v. CIT [2013] 352 ITR 273 (Delhi), W.P.(C) 2659/2012 and W.P.(C) 5443/2012, decided 14 March 2013, and issued seven mandamuses to the Department, one of them on the refusal of TDS credit on account of mismatch where the assessee had furnished the deductor's certificate before the Assessing Officer. The Board issued this Instruction to field formations in consequence, referring to paragraph 50 of that order. It recites its own earlier instructions on processing returns and giving TDS credit in mismatch cases - Instruction No. 1/2010 for assessment year 2008-09, Nos. 05/2010, 07/2010 and 09/2010 for 2009-10, No. 02/2011 for 2010-11 and Nos. 1/2012 and 04/2012 for 2011-12 - whose residuary clause was that TDS credit shall be given after due verification.
Where an assessee approaches the assessing officer with requisite details and particulars in the form of a TDS certificate as evidence against a mismatched amount, the officer will verify whether the deductor has made payment of the tax into the Government account and, if the payment has been made, credit of the same should be given to the assessee. The officer is at liberty to ascertain and verify the true and correct position about the TDS with the assessing officer having TDS jurisdiction, and may if deemed necessary issue a notice to the deductor to compel him to file a correction statement. The Board records that the manner laid down by the High Court may be one of the methods of due verification referred to in its earlier instructions, and directs that the Instruction be brought to the notice of all officers for compliance.
The Instruction was issued to implement the Delhi High Court's mandamus in Court On Its Own Motion v. CIT, which addressed the refusal of credit where the assessee produces the deductor's certificate and the tax has reached the Government, and it points the officer to paragraph 50 of that order. The Board accordingly directed that the certificate be treated as evidence which the officer must act on, and gave him the machinery to do so: he may verify the true position with the assessing officer having TDS jurisdiction over the deductor, or issue a notice to the deductor requiring the filing of a correction statement. Verification of that kind, the Board said, may be one of the methods of 'due verification' contemplated by its earlier instructions on processing returns and clearing the backlog in mismatch cases.
In view of the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (reference: para 50 of the order); it has been decided by the Board that when an assessee approaches the Assessing Officer with requisite details and particulars in the form of TDS certificate as an evidence against any mismatched amount, the said Assessing Officer will verify whether or not the deductor has made payment of the TDS in the Government Account and if the payment has been made, credit of the same should be given to the assessee.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppYes. Issued to give effect to the Delhi High Court's directions in Court On Its Own Motion v. CIT [2013] 352 ITR 273 (Delhi), the Instruction tells the assessing officer that where the assessee produces the TDS certificate as evidence against a mismatched amount, the officer must verify whether the deductor has paid the tax into the Government account and, if he has, give the credit. The Allahabad High Court has since decided a refund case on the strength of it. This was decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Government of India) and bears on section 199, section 203, section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as Instruction No. 5/2013, F.No. 275/03/2013-IT(B), dated 8 July 2013. This converts the 26AS mismatch from a dead end into a duty to enquire. The usual departmental answer - 'the system shows no credit, take it up with your deductor' - is not open to the officer once the certificate is on the file. The Instruction also arms him with the means: he can check with the assessing officer having TDS jurisdiction, or issue notice to the deductor to file a correction statement. It is not only paper. In U.P. Rajya Nirman Sahakari Sangh Ltd. v. Union of India [2025] 179 taxmann.com 615 (Allahabad), decided 8 October 2025, a society whose TDS refunds had been refused because the amounts did not appear in Form 26AS succeeded: the Court set the Instruction out, noted that it rests on Court On Its Own Motion, and decided in light of that judgment and the Instruction that documents proving deduction must be acted on. If it applies to you, the first step is this: File the deductor's TDS certificate with the officer, with a covering letter identifying the exact amount and quarter that is missing from 26AS.
Assessees holding valid TDS certificates were being denied credit because the deductor's statement did not match, or did not appear at all, in the departmental database behind Form 26AS. The Delhi High Court took up the problem on its own motion in Court On Its Own Motion v. CIT [2013] 352 ITR 273 (Delhi), W.P.(C) 2659/2012 and W.P.(C) 5443/2012, decided 14 March 2013, and issued seven mandamuses to the Department, one of them on the refusal of TDS credit on account of mismatch where the assessee had furnished the deductor's certificate before the Assessing Officer. The Board issued this Instruction to field formations in consequence, referring to paragraph 50 of that order. It recites its own earlier instructions on processing returns and giving TDS credit in mismatch cases - Instruction No. 1/2010 for assessment year 2008-09, Nos. 05/2010, 07/2010 and 09/2010 for 2009-10, No. 02/2011 for 2010-11 and Nos. 1/2012 and 04/2012 for 2011-12 - whose residuary clause was that TDS credit shall be given after due verification. The matter was decided on 2013-07-08 by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions (Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Government of India). On those facts the CBDT Circulars & Instructions held as follows. Where an assessee approaches the assessing officer with requisite details and particulars in the form of a TDS certificate as evidence against a mismatched amount, the officer will verify whether the deductor has made payment of the tax into the Government account and, if the payment has been made, credit of the same should be given to the assessee. The officer is at liberty to ascertain and verify the true and correct position about the TDS with the assessing officer having TDS jurisdiction, and may if deemed necessary issue a notice to the deductor to compel him to file a correction statement. The Board records that the manner laid down by the High Court may be one of the methods of due verification referred to in its earlier instructions, and directs that the Instruction be brought to the notice of all officers for compliance.
The Instruction was issued to implement the Delhi High Court's mandamus in Court On Its Own Motion v. CIT, which addressed the refusal of credit where the assessee produces the deductor's certificate and the tax has reached the Government, and it points the officer to paragraph 50 of that order. The Board accordingly directed that the certificate be treated as evidence which the officer must act on, and gave him the machinery to do so: he may verify the true position with the assessing officer having TDS jurisdiction over the deductor, or issue a notice to the deductor requiring the filing of a correction statement. Verification of that kind, the Board said, may be one of the methods of 'due verification' contemplated by its earlier instructions on processing returns and clearing the backlog in mismatch cases. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "In view of the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (reference: para 50 of the order); it has been decided by the Board that when an assessee approaches the Assessing Officer with requisite details and particulars in the form of TDS certificate as an evidence against any mismatched amount, the said Assessing Officer will verify whether or not the deductor has made payment of the TDS in the Government Account and if the payment has been made, credit of the same should be given to the assessee."
It was decided by the CBDT Circulars & Instructions on 2013-07-08 and is reported as Instruction No. 5/2013, F.No. 275/03/2013-IT(B), dated 8 July 2013. Binding on the department, not on the assessee or the courts. An assessee may rely on a circular that is beneficial to them. A CBDT circular or instruction binds officers of the department but not the assessee and not the courts. Where a circular helps you, you may hold the department to it. Where it hurts you, it cannot override the Act or a judgment. On section 199, section 203, section 143(1), the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the taxpayer. Where an assessee approaches the assessing officer with requisite details and particulars in the form of a TDS certificate as evidence against a mismatched amount, the officer will verify whether the deductor has made payment of the tax into the Government account and, if the payment has been made, credit of the same should be given to the assessee. The officer is at liberty to ascertain and verify the true and correct position about the TDS with the assessing officer having TDS jurisdiction, and may if deemed necessary issue a notice to the deductor to compel him to file a correction statement. The Board records that the manner laid down by the High Court may be one of the methods of due verification referred to in its earlier instructions, and directs that the Instruction be brought to the notice of all officers for compliance. It arises in TDS Defaults, Refunds, Interest & Condonation and Assessment & Scrutiny matters, on section 199, section 203, section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Government of India. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Ask him in terms to verify with the assessing officer having TDS jurisdiction, or to issue notice to the deductor to file a correction statement, as the Instruction contemplates. Record that the verification is the officer's duty under the Instruction, so that the file shows a request that was not acted on if you have to go further. If the officer still insists that the credit must appear in Form 26AS, cite U.P. Rajya Nirman Sahakari Sangh Ltd. v. Union of India [2025] 179 taxmann.com 615 (Allahabad), where the High Court set this Instruction out and held that documents proving deduction must be acted on. Where the tax was deducted but never deposited at all, run the s.205 argument in parallel - this Instruction deals with credit, not with the bar on recovery.
Still good law. A later decision applies the Instruction by name. In U.P. Rajya Nirman Sahakari Sangh Ltd. v. Union of India [2025] 179 taxmann.com 615 (Allahabad), Shekhar B. Saraf and Prashant Kumar, JJ., Writ - C No. 16125 of 2018, decided 8 October 2025, a co-operative society exempt under s.80P had been refused TDS refunds for assessment years 2009-10 to 2012-13 and 2015-16 because the amounts did not appear in Form 26AS. At paragraph 7 the Court set out Instruction No. 5/2013 and quoted its operative paragraph in full, noting that it rests on the Delhi High Court's judgment in Court On Its Own Motion; at paragraph 8 it decided the case in light of that judgment and the Instruction, holding for the assessee that where the assessee produces documents proving deduction the officer must accept them and cannot insist that the amount match Form 26AS. That judgment also records that it followed Court On Its Own Motion v. CIT [2013] 352 ITR 273 (Delhi) and Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. Union of India [2014] 365 ITR 143 (Allahabad), the second of which is on the same grievance but does not itself cite the Instruction. One qualification belongs on the face of this: two renderings of the Instruction's paragraphs 3 and 4 are in circulation and the Court quoted the longer of them - see the editor's note - so the strength of the direction depends on which text is put forward. Supersession: nothing withdrawing, replacing or modifying the Instruction was found, and it is carried with no such annotation in a research database that does annotate superseded and corrected instruments. Sections 199 and 203 are unchanged. One practical note: tribunals deciding this grievance often go on different Board material - s.205, Instruction No. 275/29/2014-IT(B) dated 1 June 2015 and the Office Memorandum of 11 March 2016, with the Yashpal Sahni line - which is usually the more productive citation where the deductor deducted but never deposited. That finding was checked against a published source, which is linked on this page, on 2026-08-24. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The Instruction has now been read in a primary rendering rather than only in commentary reproductions, and the stored quotation, which had broken off mid-sentence, is given in full. One textual caution matters for a library that quotes. Two renderings of paragraphs 3 and 4 are in circulation. The shorter ends paragraph 3 with the officer's liberty to verify the position with the assessing officer having TDS jurisdiction and to issue notice to the deductor to file a correction statement, and has paragraph 4 say that the manner laid down by the High Court 'may be one of the method of due verification'. The longer, which the Allahabad High Court quoted in the 2025 decision, continues paragraph 3 with the TDS officer's power to invoke all the powers and authority available to him under the Act, to obtain the prior approval of the Director or Commissioner if required, and to examine whether a general approval can be given, and has paragraph 4 say that the manner 'is a method of due verification'. The difference goes to the strength of the direction: quote the version you can attribute, and do not present the shorter form as the whole of paragraph 3. On the parent decision, two cause-title forms are in circulation - the Instruction's own heading calls it Court On Its Own Motion v. Union of India, while the law reports carry it as Court On Its Own Motion v. Commissioner of Income-tax [2013] 352 ITR 273 (Delhi) - so search both. Note also the limit of the direction: it is to verify whether the deductor has paid, and to give credit if he has. It does not on its face require credit where the deductor deducted and never deposited; that situation is governed by s.205 and by the 2015 Instruction and the 2016 Office Memorandum, not by this Instruction. The Instruction does not fix a time within which the officer must complete the verification, does not say what happens if the deductor does not respond to the correction notice, and does not address credit in the correct assessment year, which is a rule 37BA question. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
Where an assessee approaches the assessing officer with requisite details and particulars in the form of a TDS certificate as evidence against a mismatched amount, the officer will verify whether the deductor has made payment of the tax into the Government account and, if the payment has been made, credit of the same should be given to the assessee. The officer is at liberty to ascertain and verify the true and correct position about the TDS with the assessing officer having TDS jurisdiction, and may if deemed necessary issue a notice to the deductor to compel him to file a correction statement. The Board records that the manner laid down by the High Court may be one of the methods of due verification referred to in its earlier instructions, and directs that the Instruction be brought to the notice of all officers for compliance.
TaxSphere, “CBDT Instruction No. 5/2013 — TDS credit where 26AS does not match”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/cbdt-instruction-5-2013-tds-credit-on-certificate/ (validity last checked 2026-08-24)
The judgment itself is a government work and may be quoted freely. The summary, the validity note and the reasoning on this page are this library's own writing: quote them with attribution, and please do not present either as the words of the court — this page keeps the two apart and so should a quotation of it.
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
CPC has refused my TDS credit and adjusted the refund against an old demand. What did the Delhi High Court actually direct?
My employer deducted tax but never deposited it, so the credit was denied on processing, a demand now sits on the portal and my later years' refunds are being eaten by it. Do I get the credit and the refund, or only a promise that nobody will recover from me?
The deductor credited the TDS late, so it turned up in 26AS only after I had filed. The department says I should have revised my return, and refuses credit because I never offered the income to tax. Is there a way back?
The HUF's money was invested in the karta's own name, so the TDS certificate and the 26AS entry carry his individual PAN. The HUF offered the interest to tax and the karta claimed no credit. The department says PAN mismatch, no credit. What now?
