Harsh Kiritkumar Shah, Ahmedabad V. Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), , Bengaluru Present Juridiction The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 110/AHD/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9523 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 08-10-2023
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Tax effect; TDS; FORM 26AS
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Harsh Kiritkumar Shah, 1, Swapnil Flats, New Sharda Mandir Road, Paldi, Ahmedabad-380007 PAN: ATTPS7405H (Appellant) Vs Centralised Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru, Present Jurisdiction ITO, Ward- 5(3)(1), Ahmedabad (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Manthan Khokhani, A.R. Revenue by: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 09-10-2023 Date of pronouncement : 15-12-2023 आदेश/ORDER This is an appeal filed against the order dated 28-12- 2022 passed by ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2018-19. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- ITA No. 110/Ahd/2023 Assessment Year 2018-19 I.T.A No. 110/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No. Harsh Kiritkumar Shah vs. CPC, Bengaluru Present Jurisdiction ITO 2 “1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Centralized Processing Centre has erred in fact and in law in not giving credits of TDS as shown in Form 26AS of Rs. 1,05,752/- 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of interest u/s. 234(a), 234(b), 234(c), 234(d). 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, edit, delete, change or modify all or any of the ground before or at the time of hearing. Total tax effect Rs. 1,05,752/-” 3. The assessee is an individual who is into manpower supply services and filed his return of income for assessment year 2018-19 on 14-09-2018 declaring total income at Rs. 20,10,930/- and tax as interest at Rs. 4,28,253/-. The assessee claimed TDS as per Form 26AS amounting to Rs. 9,67,424/- and thus refund was filed amounting to Rs. 5,39,170/-. The return was processed and intimation dated 28-08-2019 of proposed adjustment u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act was sent to the assessee in respect of issues related to sum received from employees as contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or any fund set up under ESI Act or any other fund for the welfare of the employees to the extent not credited to the employees account on or before the due date u/s. 36(1)(va) for an amount of Rs. 15,07,056/-. Income from business or profession computed at Rs. 36,81,359/- against returned income from business at I.T.A No. 110/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No. Harsh Kiritkumar Shah vs. CPC, Bengaluru Present Jurisdiction ITO 3 Rs. 21,74,303/-. Thus, the aggregate income was computed at Rs. 35,17,980/- against returned income of Rs. 2,01,093/- levying impugned tax of Rs. 4,65,678/- due to which refund was reduced. After verifying the addition of Rs. 15,07,056/- was made and aggregate tax liability as per column 41 on such intimation stood at Rs. 11,08,950/- including interest. TDS claimed from 26AS at Rs. 967,424/- was not given any TDS credit. The assessee filed rectification in respect of incorrect computation and the Assessing Officer passed rectification order u/s. 154 dated 05-12-2019 and showed said addition at Rs. 15,07,056/- due to which aggregate tax liability was determined at Rs. 8,93,931/- as against filed detail of Rs. 4,28,253/-. TDS credit was given at Rs. 8,95,671/- which as per the assessee was wrong and submitted that the actual TDS was Rs. 10,01,423/- which assessee claimed as shown in Form 26AS for Rs. 9,67,424/- while filing income tax return. Thus, the refund as per Rs. 5,73,170/- was reduced to Rs. 1,740/- due to tax levy of Rs. 8,93,931/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the rectification order dated 05-12- 2019, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. I.T.A No. 110/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No. Harsh Kiritkumar Shah vs. CPC, Bengaluru Present Jurisdiction ITO 4 5. The ld. A.R. submitted that the Centralized Processing Centre has not given the credit of TDS as shown in Form 26AS of Rs. 10,01,423/- and the TDS credit of Rs. 8,95,671/- which was given was not correct. Thus, the ld. A.R. submitted that the same should have been credited but failed to do so. The ld. A.R. submitted that as per attached Form 26AS which was evident that the credit of Rs. 10,01,423/- and the same was related to the income which has been duly shown in the income tax return. As per extract shown from the several names of deductors, it was evident that rightful TDS credit should have been shown in Form 26AS. The A.R. submitted that all the details were submitted before the A.O. as well as CIT(A). The same was not taken into cognizance while giving the TDS credit. 6. The ld. D.R. submitted that the assessee has not fully given the details and therefore relied upon the rectification order an the order of the CIT(A). 7. Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. After going through the records, it appears that the assessee has given a re-conciliation of TDS as per books and 26AS Form at page 18 of the paper book before the Tribunal and the same was also explained before the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) and was not taken into I.T.A No. 110/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No. Harsh Kiritkumar Shah vs. CPC, Bengaluru Present Jurisdiction ITO 5 consideration. Thus, it will be appropriate to remand back this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper verification and adjudication as per the details given by the assessee before the Tribunal and after verifying the same, the matter may be adjudicated as per due process of law. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 15-12-2023 Sd/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 15/12/2023 आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद