ALANKAR APARTMENTS PVT. LTD.,DELHI V. DCIT CIRCLE, 1(1) DELHI, DELHI

ITA 5963/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Alankar Apartments Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre and the Assessing Officer regarding the assessment year 2018-19. The primary issue was the alleged mismatch between the income figures reported in the assessee's books and those reflected in Form 26AS, leading to an addition of Rs. 4,61,39,688 as undisclosed income. The Tribunal considered various judicial precedents and the arguments presented by both the assessee and the revenue department. It was noted that the lower authorities had not fully completed the reconciliation process, prompting the Tribunal to restore the matter for a detailed examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 842350 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2025
• Other Referred Cases: H.B. Gandhi, Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority v. Gopi Nath & Sons, 1992 Supp. SCC (2) 312, CIT v. Relcom [2015] 62 taxmann.com 190 (Delhi), Income-tax Officer, Ward - 43(2), Kolkata vs. Star Consortium [2021] 127 taxmann.com 681 (Kolkata - Trib), Sudhir Dayalal Mistry v. ACIT, Circle 20(3), Mumbai, ITA No.5764/Mum/2024 (dated 01.05.2025), TUV India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2019] 110 taxmann.com 175 (Mumbai), Rajkumar Anandchand Jain v. DCIT, ITA No. 3092/Миm/2023 (dated 07.02.2024), CIT vs. Relcom (ITA No. 26/2015), TUV India Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT (I.T.A No. 6628/Mum/2017), M/s Roopa Electricals v. ITO ITA No. 221/ Bang/2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Principle of natural justice; TDS; FORM 26AS
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

"5963_Del_2025_Alankar Apartments Pvt. Ltd. 1 | P a g e IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5963/DEL/2025; Assessment Year: 2018-19 Alankar Apartments Pvt. Ltd. L-4, Green Park Extension, New Delhi- 16 Vs DCIT Circle 1(1) Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN/TAN No. AAACA0091N Assessee Represented by: Ms. Meena Goyel, CA Shri Saksham Garg, CA Revenue/Department Represented by: Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 26.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement: 27.02.2026 ORDER PER RENU JAUHRI : The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 16.07.2025, passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [for short, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC], Delhi u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as, “Act”] for A.Y. 2018-19 in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10049955. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That on facts and in law, both the impugned assessment order dated 23.04.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“\"the Act\") and consequent impugned appellate order dated 16.09.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (“CIT(A)\") u/s. 250 of the Act affirming the impugned assessment order are contrary to settled law, perverse, arbitrary and bad in law. Printed from counselvise.com 5963_Del_2025_Alankar Apartments Pvt. Ltd. 2 | P a g e 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the impugned addition of Rs. 4,61,39,688/- made by the Ld. AO on account of alleged variance as per Form 26AS vis-à-vis books of accounts, in complete disregard to the reconciliation and the documentary evidence placed in support thereof, by the Appellant. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the Ld. AO grossly erred in case of deductor Amazon Development Centre (India) Private Limited, in failing to appreciate that the variance was on account of receipt of advance rent of Rs.2,52,86,960/- for AY 2019-20, receipt of arrears of rent of Rs. 43,03,360/- pertaining to AY 2017-18 and erroneous income of Rs. 8,82,075/- not reported in Form 26AS and hence, the same stood reconciled via detailed replies along with cogent documentary evidences. 4. That the impugned CIT(A) order dated 16.09.2025 is passed after ignoring the updated Form 26AS submitted by the Appellant, as the same reflected the corrected figures, thereby validating the Appellant's claim beyond any reasonable doubt, thereby rendering the impugned order as non-est vide H.B. Gandhi, Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority v. Gopi Nath & Sons, 1992 Supp. SCC (2) 312. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A)/AO failed to appreciate that the variance of Rs.19,54,440/- and Rs. 1,37,90,655/- qua deductors Inditex Tent Retail (I) P Ltd. and ITX Ser. India P. Ltd. respectively, stood reconciled as the said amounts pertain to group company - M/s. Ambience Facilities Management Pvt. Ltd. (“AFMPL\"), incorrectly posted in Appellant's Form 26AS by the deductor, when corresponding credit was foregone by AFMPL duly supported by certificate from Chartered Accountant. 6. That the Ld. CIT(A)/AO failed to appreciate that the variance of Rs. 4,45,526/- qua deductor Vodafone Mobile Services Ltd. stood duly reconciled on account of receipt of arrear rent of Rs. 3,60,000/- for AY 2017-18, advance rent of Rs. 99,000/- pertaining to AY 2019-20 and Rs. 5,360/- on account of reimbursement of electricity charges erroneously shown by the deductor. Printed from counselvise.com 5963_Del_2025_Alankar Apartments Pvt. Ltd. 3 | P a g e 7. That the Ld. CIT(A)/AO failed to appreciate that the variance of Rs.14,16,598/- qua deductor SABIC (India) Pvt. Ltd. stood duly reconciled for the fact that the deductor had deducted/ deposited TDS on the gross invoice value (inclusive of GST) in place of the service portion, which stood substantiated via supporting tax invoices. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A)/ AO have unlawfully endorsed a view that instead of claiming the TDS amount, the Appellant ought to have compulsorily sought correction by the (third-party) vendors, which is untenable and contrary to settled law vide CIT v. Relcom [2015] 62 taxmann.com 190 (Delhi), as the same would unnecessarily prolong the entire process of seeking refund based on TDS credit. 9. That the Ld. CIT(A)/AO grossly failed to appreciate that the Appellant cannot be saddled with the onerous and impracticable burden of establishing a negative, namely, that the amounts reflected in Form 26AS did not pertain to or belong to it for the relevant AY and on the basis of errors committed by the deductors vide Income-tax Officer, Ward - 43(2), Kolkata vs. Star Consortium [2021] 127 taxmann.com 681 (Kolkata - Trib). 10. That the Ld. CIT(A)/AO failed to appreciate that difference between contractual receipts declared by an Assessee in its books of accounts and the income as is reflected in Form No. 26AS leading to a differential in revenue cannot be made basis for consequential additions vide Sudhir Dayalal Mistry v. ACIT, Circle 20(3), Mumbai, ITA No.5764/Mum/2024 (dated 01.05.2025). 11. That the Ld. AO has neither dislodged nor controverted the veracity or authenticity of the documentary evidences so adduced by the Appellant, nor undertaken any independent inquiry or verification from the concerned deductors so as to rebut the contentions advanced or discharge the onus that had shifted upon the Department as mandated vide TUV India (P.) Ltd. vs. DCIT [2019] 110 taxmann.com 175 (Mumbai). 12. That the impugned CIT(A) order is passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice, insofar as no opportunity at all Printed from counselvise.com 5963_Del_2025_Alankar Apartments Pvt. Ltd. 4 | P a g e is granted to the Appellant to present its case (apart from a single Notice u/s. 250 dated 03.06.2025). 13. That the impugned CIT(A) order is a non-speaking order merely affirming the impugned Assessment order, sans any reasoning or findings, and is therefore liable to be quashed vide Rajkumar Anandchand Jain v. DCIT, ITA No. 3092/Миm/2023 (dated 07.02.2024). That all the aforesaid grounds of appeal are independent and without prejudice to one another. That the Appellant craves leave to add, delete or modify the aforementioned Grounds of Appeal at any time during the pendency of the Appeal.” 3. Although, the assessee has raised as many as 13 grounds, the sole substantive issue involved is the mismatch between the figures reflected in Form 26AS vis-à-vis the assessee’s books of accounts. 3.1 Brief facts are that the assessee filed its return declaring loss of Rs. 13,14,54,940/- for A.Y. 2018-19 on 19.09.2018. The case was selected for complete scrutiny and the Ld. AO issued notice u/s 142(1) asking the assessee to reconcile the mismatch of Rs. 4,61,39,688/- between the figures of income as per its books and the figures reflected in Form 26AS. After considering the assessee’s submissions, Ld. AO held that the assessee was not able to reconcile the figures and no reasonable reply with supporting evidences had been furnished. He, therefore, added the amount of Rs. 4,61,39,688/- as undisclosed income and finalised the assessment accordingly. Aggrieved the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee’s appeal was dismissed by Ld. CIT(A) holding as under: “ The reply filed by the appellant is considered. The appellant had not filed document relevance apart from is own 26A statement to support his claim that, the income on which TDS was deducted in name of the appellant by the deductor was actually offered for tax by that related party. It is important to note that, such information was not filed before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, in the absence of any documentary evidences it is difficult to accept the claim of the appellant. The appellant could have file previous years ITR, 26AS statements and confirmation from Printed from counselvise.com 5963_Del_2025_Alankar Apartments Pvt. Ltd. 5 | P a g e the deductor so that, correct credit of TDS could have been granted to the appellant.” Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Before us, Ld. AR has made elaborate arguments and has filed written submissions which are taken on record. Besides submitting a reconciliation statement and the explanation regarding the mismatch, Ld. AR has placed reliance on the various judicial pronouncements in support of its claim. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court int eh case of CIT vs. Relcom (ITA No. 26/2015) wherein it has been held that TDS credit cannot be denied merely on technical grounds that the income in respect of which TDS was deducted was not assessee’s income, particularly when the income had already been subjected to tax in the hands of the group company. 4.1 With regard to the claim that simply on account of differences in figures reflected in the Form 26AS and the income recorded in Books of Accounts addition could not have been made. Ld. AR relied on the following decisions of the co-ordinate Benches: (i) TUV India Pvt. Ltd v. DCIT (I.T.A No. 6628/Mum/2017) wherein Hon’ble co-ordinate Bench, Mumbai held that once the assessee furnishes reconciliation and explains the difference between income as per Form 26AS and books of accounts the onus stands discharged. (ii) M/s Roopa Electricals v. ITO ITA No. 221/ Bang/2019 wherein the following the decision in TUV (supra) it was held that no additions are warranted simply owing to differential in income based on Form 26AS and assessee’s books of accounts. 4.2 On the other hand, Ld. DR has argued that no proper reconciliation with regard to various claims regarding reflecting the income in the hands of group companies etc was furnished by the assessee before the lower authorities and, therefore, the onus to reconcile the figures was not adequately discharged. Printed from counselvise.com 5963_Del_2025_Alankar Apartments Pvt. Ltd. 6 | P a g e 5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. We note that the entire exercise of reconciliation has not been taken to the logical conclusion by the lower authorities and, therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to Ld. Jurisdictional AO for fresh consideration after taking into account the assessee’s submissions and the relevant judicial pronouncements on the issue. The assessee is also directed to furnish reconciliation statement duly supported by requisite documentary evidences before the Ld. Jurisdictional AO for fresh consideration on merits. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27.02.2026 . Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR US) (RENU JAUHRI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 27.02.2026 Pooja Mittal, Sr. PS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Printed from counselvise.com "