Employers are legally obligated to rectify erroneous TDS entries to ensure accurate credit in Form 26AS.

The petitioner, a 69-year-old retired official, paid income tax amounting to ₹1,21,872 for the financial year 2010-11, as evidenced by Form 16 issued by the Assistant District Medical Officer (ADMO), Udhampur

However, due to alleged negligence by the Treasury Officer and the ADMO, Form 26AS maintained by the Income Tax Department erroneously reflected two entries of ₹10,000 as ₹1,000 each, and omitted one entry entirely

Despite a communication from the Income Tax Officer to Respondent No. 5 on 05.10.2023 and subsequent requests to a Chartered Accountant, the entries remained unrectified

Respondent No. 6 (District Treasury Officer) denied responsibility, asserting that the establishment of Respondent No. 5 is responsible for tax uploads

Whether the respondents are under a legal obligation to rectify discrepancies between Form 16 and Form 26AS resulting from administrative negligence

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the release of the TDS amount and applicable interest following the rectification of tax records

The court emphasized the legal obligation of employers/deductors to furnish accurate particulars of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) to the Income Tax Department

This principle ensures that the credit for tax actually deducted, as reflected in the certificate issued under Form 16, is correctly mirrored in the official portal (Form 26AS) to prevent the assessee from suffering due to the deductor's clerical or administrative faults

The court found that Form 16 clearly recorded the total deduction of ₹1,21,872, including specific treasury voucher and challan identification numbers

It noted that the mismatch in Form 26AS indicated a failure by Respondent Nos. 1, 3, and 5 to correctly upload the tax data to the Income Tax Department portal

The court reasoned that the petitioner cannot be penalized for errors attributable solely to the fault of government departments

By failing to respond to the Income Tax Department's own communication for rectification, the respondents neglected their statutory and administrative duties, necessitating judicial intervention to correct the records

It further ordered Respondent No. 2 (Income Tax Commissioner) to process the petitioner’s case post-rectification and release any due TDS refund along with applicable interest

The court held that the primary responsibility for accurate tax reporting lies with the deductor