I did not deduct tax on payments to a government body that has certainly paid tax on them. It will not give me the accountant's certificate in Form 26A. Can the court make it sign, and does the first proviso to s.201(1) cover my old years?
No on both counts here. The Delhi High Court declined to issue a mandamus compelling the payee to furnish the Annexure A accountant certificate to Form 26A, and upheld the single judge's view that the first proviso to s.201(1) came into effect only on 1 July 2012 and does not reach financial years 2009-10 to 2012-13. Delay and laches - a decade after the licence ended - were an independent ground.
Decided by the High Court (Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya CJ and Tushar Rao Gedela J) on 2025-11-04, reported as LPA 652/2025 (High Court of Delhi at New Delhi), from the order dated 28 November 2024 in W.P.(C) 15188/2024. It bears on section 201, section 201(1), section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act 1961, in TDS Defaults, Appeals and Deductions & Disallowances matters.
Form 26A is the only way out of assessee-in-default status for a deductor who did not deduct, and the whole machinery depends on a third party you do not control: the payee's accountant has to certify that the payee took the receipt into its return and paid the tax. This decision is the sober answer to the question every deductor asks, which is whether a court will force the payee's hand. It also fixes the commencement date - 1 July 2012 - which matters because deductors routinely try to use the proviso for earlier years, and because the corresponding second proviso to s.40(a)(ia) came in on 1 April 2013. Note what the Court did NOT decide: it did not hold that a mandamus can never issue, and the case was heavily coloured by the destruction of the payee's records in the 2015 floods, by the ten-year delay, and by the existence of a parallel Tribunal remand on the same subject matter. The practical lesson is to obtain Form 26A while the payee still has its records and its interest in cooperating.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The appellant held a licence from the Airports Authority of India to use Salem Airport for five years from 3 April 2009 and had made payments of royalty, rent and other amounts to AAI under it. It sought a mandamus directing the Executive Director (Finance), AAI, to issue the accountant certificate at Annexure A to Form 26A in respect of those payments. AAI stated that physical records for the period before 1 April 2013 had been destroyed in the 2015 floods, so it could not verify whether the corresponding income had been included in its computation of taxable income - the precondition for the certificate - and that the first proviso to s.201 had come into effect only on 1 July 2012, so that FYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 were not covered. The single judge dismissed the writ petition on 28 November 2024 on both grounds and on delay and laches, the petition having been filed nearly a decade after the licence ended. In appeal the appellant relied on an RTI reply of 7 April 2025 in which AAI furnished details of certain payments received before 1 April 2013, but filed no application for leave to place it on record. The Court also noticed an order of the Indore Bench of the Tribunal dated 26 July 2018 in ITA No. 338/Ind/2017 for AY 2013-14, which had remanded the s.40(a)(ia) disallowance to the Assessing Officer to verify whether the payee had disclosed the receipts, and of which nothing further had been shown.
The appeal was dismissed as bereft of merits. The Court declined to direct the payee to issue the accountant certificate in Form 26A, agreeing with the single judge that the benefit of the proviso to s.201 was unavailable for FYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 because it took effect only on 1 July 2012, and that the reliefs were in any event barred by delay and laches (paras 9, 11 and 12).
The Division Bench found no reason to disagree with the single judge on either limb. On the merits, the first proviso to s.201 came into effect on 1 July 2012 and could not assist for the financial years that constituted the bulk of the claim, so a person who did not deduct remains deemed to be an assessee in default for those years. On practicability, a direction to issue the certificate would be unenforceable where the records needed to verify the payee's inclusion of the income had been destroyed. On discretion, the writ jurisdiction had been invoked about ten years after the cause of action arose. The Court also noted the pending consequences of the Tribunal's 2018 remand on the same subject matter, and that the department's standing counsel had submitted the issues ought to have been raised in appeal before the assessing and appellate authorities.
We observe from the impugned order that the learned Single Judge has taken into account the provisions of Section 201 of the Act, as also its proviso, to opine that the grievance of the appellant covering the financial years 2009-10 to 2012-13, are not covered by the benefit in the proviso since it came into effect only on 01.07.2012.
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 WhatsAppNo on both counts here. The Delhi High Court declined to issue a mandamus compelling the payee to furnish the Annexure A accountant certificate to Form 26A, and upheld the single judge's view that the first proviso to s.201(1) came into effect only on 1 July 2012 and does not reach financial years 2009-10 to 2012-13. Delay and laches - a decade after the licence ended - were an independent ground. This was decided by the High Court (Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya CJ and Tushar Rao Gedela J) and bears on section 201, section 201(1), section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as LPA 652/2025 (High Court of Delhi at New Delhi), from the order dated 28 November 2024 in W.P.(C) 15188/2024. Form 26A is the only way out of assessee-in-default status for a deductor who did not deduct, and the whole machinery depends on a third party you do not control: the payee's accountant has to certify that the payee took the receipt into its return and paid the tax. This decision is the sober answer to the question every deductor asks, which is whether a court will force the payee's hand. It also fixes the commencement date - 1 July 2012 - which matters because deductors routinely try to use the proviso for earlier years, and because the corresponding second proviso to s.40(a)(ia) came in on 1 April 2013. Note what the Court did NOT decide: it did not hold that a mandamus can never issue, and the case was heavily coloured by the destruction of the payee's records in the 2015 floods, by the ten-year delay, and by the existence of a parallel Tribunal remand on the same subject matter. The practical lesson is to obtain Form 26A while the payee still has its records and its interest in cooperating. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Get Form 26A moving immediately after the default is noticed - Annexure A from the payee's accountant under Rule 31ACB, certifying that the payee furnished its return, took the sum into account in computing income and paid the tax due.
The appellant held a licence from the Airports Authority of India to use Salem Airport for five years from 3 April 2009 and had made payments of royalty, rent and other amounts to AAI under it. It sought a mandamus directing the Executive Director (Finance), AAI, to issue the accountant certificate at Annexure A to Form 26A in respect of those payments. AAI stated that physical records for the period before 1 April 2013 had been destroyed in the 2015 floods, so it could not verify whether the corresponding income had been included in its computation of taxable income - the precondition for the certificate - and that the first proviso to s.201 had come into effect only on 1 July 2012, so that FYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 were not covered. The single judge dismissed the writ petition on 28 November 2024 on both grounds and on delay and laches, the petition having been filed nearly a decade after the licence ended. In appeal the appellant relied on an RTI reply of 7 April 2025 in which AAI furnished details of certain payments received before 1 April 2013, but filed no application for leave to place it on record. The Court also noticed an order of the Indore Bench of the Tribunal dated 26 July 2018 in ITA No. 338/Ind/2017 for AY 2013-14, which had remanded the s.40(a)(ia) disallowance to the Assessing Officer to verify whether the payee had disclosed the receipts, and of which nothing further had been shown. The matter was decided on 2025-11-04 by the High Court (Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya CJ and Tushar Rao Gedela J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The appeal was dismissed as bereft of merits. The Court declined to direct the payee to issue the accountant certificate in Form 26A, agreeing with the single judge that the benefit of the proviso to s.201 was unavailable for FYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 because it took effect only on 1 July 2012, and that the reliefs were in any event barred by delay and laches (paras 9, 11 and 12).
The Division Bench found no reason to disagree with the single judge on either limb. On the merits, the first proviso to s.201 came into effect on 1 July 2012 and could not assist for the financial years that constituted the bulk of the claim, so a person who did not deduct remains deemed to be an assessee in default for those years. On practicability, a direction to issue the certificate would be unenforceable where the records needed to verify the payee's inclusion of the income had been destroyed. On discretion, the writ jurisdiction had been invoked about ten years after the cause of action arose. The Court also noted the pending consequences of the Tribunal's 2018 remand on the same subject matter, and that the department's standing counsel had submitted the issues ought to have been raised in appeal before the assessing and appellate authorities. In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "We observe from the impugned order that the learned Single Judge has taken into account the provisions of Section 201 of the Act, as also its proviso, to opine that the grievance of the appellant covering the financial years 2009-10 to 2012-13, are not covered by the benefit in the proviso since it came into effect only on 01.07.2012."
It was decided by the High Court on 2025-11-04 and is reported as LPA 652/2025 (High Court of Delhi at New Delhi), from the order dated 28 November 2024 in W.P.(C) 15188/2024. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 201, section 201(1), section 40(a)(ia), 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 department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The appeal was dismissed as bereft of merits. The Court declined to direct the payee to issue the accountant certificate in Form 26A, agreeing with the single judge that the benefit of the proviso to s.201 was unavailable for FYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 because it took effect only on 1 July 2012, and that the reliefs were in any event barred by delay and laches (paras 9, 11 and 12). It arises in TDS Defaults, Appeals and Deductions & Disallowances matters, on section 201, section 201(1), section 40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya CJ and Tushar Rao Gedela J. 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. Check the year: the first proviso to s.201(1) operates from 1 July 2012, so for earlier years the certificate route is not available and the argument has to be run differently. Build the cooperation into the contract - a clause obliging the counterparty to furnish Annexure A on request is worth more than a writ petition years later. Where the payee cannot certify because its records are gone, pursue the s.40(a)(ia) and s.201 proceedings on the evidence you do have rather than seeking a direction against the payee. Do not run a writ in parallel with a Tribunal remand on the same subject matter, and do not sit on the grievance; both were held against the deductor here.
Searched for later treatment; none was found. That is not the same as a source affirming it. Two searches, nothing found by way of independent treatment. The citedby search on the doc id is empty. A name search returns 20 results; the only later tax item is the review order of 19 May 2026 in W.P.(C) 15188/2024 (doc 120956515), which was read. That order reviews the single judge's dismissal of 28 November 2024, not this Division Bench judgment; it records that once the appeal was dismissed on merits the appellate judgment became 'the final, binding and operative adjudication', and it dismisses the review, holding that the RTI replies 'do not establish that the specific sums allegedly paid by the Petitioner were taken into account by AAI while computing its taxable income'. A single judge cannot affirm a Division Bench, so that is not judicial treatment of this judgment. No other decision considers the holdings that no mandamus will issue to compel a payee to furnish Annexure A to Form 26A and that the first proviso to s.201(1) took effect only on 1 July 2012. No Supreme Court challenge was traced. No source could be cited for that finding. 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.
This is a Letters Patent Appeal from a single judge's order dated 28 November 2024 in W.P.(C) 15188/2024, which is set out in full in the judgment; the reasoning on the 1 July 2012 commencement is the single judge's, expressly agreed with by the Division Bench at para 9. The commencement date is stated in the judgment and was not independently checked against the Finance Act 2012 for this entry. The Division Bench also recorded that the appellant had relied, without seeking leave, on an RTI reply dated 7 April 2025 obtained after the impugned order. 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.
The appeal was dismissed as bereft of merits. The Court declined to direct the payee to issue the accountant certificate in Form 26A, agreeing with the single judge that the benefit of the proviso to s.201 was unavailable for FYs 2009-10 to 2012-13 because it took effect only on 1 July 2012, and that the reliefs were in any event barred by delay and laches (paras 9, 11 and 12).
TaxSphere, “Kohinoor Educational Services Pvt Ltd v Union of India”, https://taxnotice.vittsphere.com/caselaw/case/kohinoor-educational-services-form-26a-no-mandamus-and-1-july-2012/ (validity last checked 2026-09-08)
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.
I never filed Form 26A, but my payee did include the amount in its return and pay tax. Is the s.40(a)(ia) disallowance still good?
I already paid my sub-contractors during the year and nothing was outstanding at 31 March — can section 40(a)(ia) still disallow the expense for not deducting TDS?
You did not deduct TDS, but the payee declared the income and paid the tax. Is the expenditure still disallowed?
The AO says I short-deducted TDS on director remuneration. Can he disallow the payment under 40(a)(ia)?
