AMARDEEP SANDHU,CHANDIGARH V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CHANDIGARH

ITA 92/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Amardeep Sandhu, a Canadian non-resident, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the assessment year 2023-24. The primary issue was the non-allowance of a refund of Rs. 37,88,470, which was claimed based on TDS deducted from the sale of a property in Chandigarh. The Income Tax Department had reduced the credit of TDS claimed by the assessee, leading to a demand for additional tax. The Tribunal found discrepancies in the handling of the TDS credit and allowed the appeal, directing the issuance of the refund.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774421 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2023-2024
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN; LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL BATRA
• Keywords: TDS

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 92/CHD/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2023-24 Shri Amardeep Sandhu, Jagjit Singh Anil Batra, SCO 45, 2nd Floor, Sector 41D, Chandigarh. Vs The ITO, Chandigarh. èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: CHEPS4310N अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Anil Batra, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. ld. CIT Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 29.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 01.09.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 09.01.2025 passed for assessment year 2023-24. 2. Though the assessee has taken five grounds of appeal but his grievance revolves around a single issue, namely, Revenue Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.92/CHD/2025 A.Y.2023-24 2 Authorities have erred in not allowing the refund of Rs.37,88,470/-. 3. The brief facts as reproduced in the order of ld. CIT (Appeals) read as under : Statement of Facts PAN : CHEPS4310N Amardeep Sandhu A. Y 2023-24 Para 1. That the assessee is a Canadian non-resident and for the year under consideration he had sold property i.e House No 1602, Sector 36 D, Chandigarh for a consideration of Rs. 4,65,00,000/- on which Rs. 1,20,90,000/- tax was deducted at source @26%. Para 2. Accordingly Income Tax Return was filed vide Acknowledgment no 559929440191223 dated 19-12-2023 declaring net taxable income inclusive of Long Term capital gain at Rs. 3,71,29,847/- and sought of refund of Rs. 37,88,470/- Para 3. However, the assessee received intimation U/s 143(1) dated 19-01-2024 vide DIN: CPC/2324/A2/414010942 raising a demand of Rs. 29,94,960/-vide Demand Ref. No. 202320233724503863T. The demand has been raised by reducing the credit of TDS of Rs. 1,26,20,185/- to Rs. 63,26,743/- on presumption, by invoking Rule 37B A(2)(i) as through part of income is assessable the hands of some other person. No such clue emanates either from the income tax return fled by the assessee, or in F. No 26AS (Annual Tax Statement) which report the correct income ad TDS on the sale property at Rs. 4,65,00,000/- and Rs. 1,20,90,000/- being 26% of the Gross sale consideration U/s 195/197 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as the assessee ( deductee) was a Non Resident in India. Para 4. However there is misleading reporting in the T1S showing having the same property to have been sold twine by different persons i.e The transactions has been reported as under the title Sr. No General Information category The transactions items 5 is correct 4 Sale of land or building Rs. 9,30,00,000/- 5 Receipts from transfer of immovable property Rs. 4,65,00.000/- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.92/CHD/2025 A.Y.2023-24 3 4. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. On a perusal of the impugned order passed by the CPC, Bangalore u/s 143(1) as well as the order of the CIT (Appeals), we find that there is no coherence between their conclusion vis-à-vis actual facts available on the record. The finding of the CIT (Appeals) is worthy to note in this connection which reads as under : “Decision : Here the main issue relates with short grant of TDS credit. In this regard, the assessee submitted its reply but not found acceptable because TDS share belongs to some person named Mehtab kaur. Moreover, the assessee also tailed to submit the copy of Bank account for F.Y.2022-23. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” 5 This finding is totally vague. It is neither here nor there. It does not disclose as to why explanation of the assessee is not acceptable, as to how some other name crept-in in the TDS shares. The CIT (Appeals) was expected to call for complete record and thereafter adjudicate the issue specifically. After looking into the facts and the details submitted before us, we are of the view that it is unnecessary disallowance by the CPC Bangalore and unnecessarily confirmed by the CIT (Appeals). Therefore, we allow the appeal of the assessee and direct the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.92/CHD/2025 A.Y.2023-24 4 Revenue to issue refund of Rs.37,88,470/- within one month from receipt of this order. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 01.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam” आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "