IRCON DAVANAGERE HAVERI HIGHWAY LIMITED,DELHI V. DCIT CIRCLE-10(1), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 3498/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Ircon DavanagereHaveri Highway Limited, the appellant, challenging an order from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) concerning the Assessment Year 2013-14. The primary contention was regarding the non-allowance of credit for prepaid taxes as claimed by the assessee, which amounted to Rs.4,41,36,846. The assessee argued that only Rs.55,41,880 was allowed, which was a violation of the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had already granted relief to the assessee, thus making the current appeal infructuous.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 30533 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PARAKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH GUPTA
• Keywords: TDS; FORM 26AS
• Section: 154; 143(1)

Judgement Text

"1 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH C: DELHI BEFORESHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3498/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2022-23 Ircon DavanagereHaveri Highway Limited, C-4, District Centre Saket New Delhi-110017 Vs. DCIT Circle -10 (1) Delhi PAN No.:AAECI5116Q (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PERSUDHIR KUMAR, JM: The assesseepreferred the captioned appeal, challenging the order dated 14.11.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax. Addl/JCIT-A (2), Hyderabad(in short “CIT(A)”) Delhi pertaining to Assessment year 2013-14 and arises out of the order dated Assesseeby Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Department by Sh. Om Parakash,Sr. DR Date of hearing 24.02.2025 Date of pronouncement 12.03.2025 2 13.06.2023passed under Section143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act for short”). 2. The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned order u/s 154 dated 01-03-2024 and that too without any basis and without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and in violation of principles of natural justice. 2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned order u/s 154 dated 01-03-2024, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in not allowing the credit of prepaid taxes of Rs.4,41,36,846/- as claimed and further erred in allowing the same to the extent of Rs.55,41,880/- only and that too without appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case and in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in not allowing the credit 3 of prepaid taxes of Rs.4,41,36,846/- as claimed by the assessee, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other. 3. The brief facts of the case are that return of income was filed by the assessee company for the year under consideration on 27.10.2022. Thereafter, assessee company received an intimation order u/s. 143 (1) dated 13.06.2023 wherein the benefit of credit of TDS to the extent of Rs.3,85,94,966/- was not allowed by DDIT, CPC whereas the same amount has been reflected in Form 26AS of the assessee company. The assessee company also filed a rectification petition u/s. 154 of the Act on 18.12.2023 against the said intimation order before the ACIT, Circle 10 (1), Delhi which is pending as on date. 4. The Ld. Counsel on behalf of assessee has stated that he has filed the appeal against the order of the AO u/s. 143(1) and then relief has been granted u/s. 154 of the Act, he has also submitted that the 4 appeal has become infructuous because the relief has been alreadygranted by the Ld. CIT(A). 5. The DR has fairly conceded this fact. 6. We have considered the rival arguments of both the sides. The relief has already been granted by the Ld. CIT(A), so the appeal has become infructuous. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as become infructuous. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12 /03/2025. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER Dated: 12 March,2025 “Neha, Sr. PS” Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra "