K S Rao & CO , Hyderabad V. Income Tax Officers ,Ward -6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 381/Hyd/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4523 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 23-09-2021
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rectification of order; TDS; Set aside; FORM 26AS
• Section: 54; 154; 143(1); 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH ‘B’, HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.381/H/2021 Assessment Year: 2017-18 K.S. Rao & Co. (formerly K.S. Rao & company) Chartered Accountants, Flat No. 601A, Golden Green Apartments, Irrum Manzil Colony, Hyderabad-500082, Telangana v. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Hyderabad PAN:AACFK8953G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. V. Siva Kumar, AR Respondent by: Sh. Rohit Mujumdar, DR Date of hearing: 09.11.2021 Date of pronouncement: 22 .11.2021 O R D E R VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 07 th October, 2019 of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- 1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 01.09.2021 is erroneous, contrary to law and facts of the case. 2. a) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in holding that the Assessing Officer has rightfully disallowed credit for TDS of Rs. 80,951/- on the ground that there is no proof to that extent that the same was deducted and deposited with the Government. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in stating so when the Appellant had furnished details of fee collections, TDS thereon and Assessment Year in which such TDS is available in Form 26AS. b) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in stating that Rs. 80,951/- does not appear to exists in the tax deduction database of the Income 2 ITA No. 381/H/2021 Assessment Year – 2017-18 2 Tax department without putting it to the Appellant especially when all the details relating to the claim of TDS were submitted by the Appellant. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in such a case, should have checked with the Appellant to furnish the required details. 3. For all of the above and such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing it is prayed that the appeal be allowed and suitable directions be issued to the Assessing Officer to grant TDS as claimed by the appellant for this asst. year in the interest of justice.” 2. The solitary issue arises in this appeal is regarding disallowance of credit for TDS of Rs. 80,951/- confirmed by CIT out of Rs. 1,71,360/-while processing the return of income by CPC under section 143(1) of the Act and thereafter passing the order under section 154 of the Act dated 26 th June, 2019. The assessee is a partnership firm of Chartered Accountants and filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 31 st October, 2019 declaring the total income of Rs. 01,10,67,800/-. The return of income was processed by CPC under section 143(1) accepting the declared income but made the adjustment on account of the tax payable by the assessee of Rs. 04,88,679/- after giving credit of TDS of Rs. 32,81,767/- as against the claim of TDS credit of Rs. 36,93,506/-. Thus due to short credit for TDS, there was an adjustment of Rs. 04,88,679/-. The assessee filed a rectification application under section 54 before the CPC, which was disposed of vide order dated 26.06.2019. 3. Aggrieved by the said adjustment, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and contended that during the year under consideration, the assessee received a gross receipt of 32,81,767/- from which a TDS of Rs.36,93,506/- was deducted. The said TDS was also reflected in Form No. 26AS and hence the CPC was not justified in giving short TDS credit resulting demand of Rs.1,71,360/-. The CIT(A) has partly allowed the claim of the assessee and confirmed the non grant of credit to the extent of Rs. 80,951/-, while passing the impugned order. 3 ITA No. 381/H/2021 Assessment Year – 2017-18 3 4. Before the Tribunal, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the assessee has produced all the details of gross receipts, TDS deducted which is reflected in Form 26AS. He has further contended that even in the preceding years for the assessment years 2012- to 2017-18, a similar issue was considered and decided by the CIT(A) in favour of the assessee. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that neither the CPC nor the CIT(A) has verified the correctness of the facts of TDS deducted from the receipts of the assessee which was reflected in Form 26AS. Thus he has pleaded that the Assessing Officer may be directed to verify the correctness of the facts regarding the gross receipts as well as the TDS deducted from the same and reflected in Form 26AS and then allow the claim of tax credit to the assessee. 5. On the other hand, learned DR has submitted that the claim of TDS is not matching with the data available in this system of the Department and therefore, the credit was allowed only to the extent of TDS amount which is available in the system of the Department. He has relied upon the orders of the CIT(A). 6. Having considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record, it is noted that while passing the order under section 154 of the Act, the CPC has denied the TDS credit for an amount of Rs. 1,54,213/- but no reason is assigned for non granting the credit of the said amount. The CIT(A) though accepted this fact that the CPC has not given any reason for not allowing the credit of the said amount and accordingly directed the CPC to allow the total TDS credit Rs. 11,06,643/- instead of Rs. 9,52,430/- allowed in the rectification order passed under section 154 of the Act. Further the CIT(A) has directed the assessee to provide the information for the purpose of implementing the directions issued to the CPC. Thus, it is manifest from the impugned order that the CIT(A), instead of getting relevant details and facts verified by calling a remand report from the Assessing Officer, has directed the CPC to consider the issue and allow the claim. Since the assessee has claimed that the relevant details were filed in the proceedings under section 154 of the Act as 4 ITA No. 381/H/2021 Assessment Year – 2017-18 4 well as before the CIT(A) therefore, in the interest of justice, we set aside this issue to the record of the Assessing Officer to verify the relevant details and correctness of the claim of the assessee regarding the TDS credit. The Assessing Officer has to properly verify the details of TDS as reflected in Form 26AS and then allow the TDS credit to the assessee after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22.11.2021. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- [LAXMI PRASAD SAHU] [VIJAY PAL RAO] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22 /11/2021 sh 1 K.S. Rao & Co. (formerly K.S. Rao & company) Chartered Accountants, Flat No. 601A, Golden Green Apartments, Irrum Manzil Colony, Hyderabad-500082, Telangana 2 ITO, Ward – 6(1), Hyderabad 3 CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre 4 ITAT, DR, Hyderabad. 5 Guard File. By order Assistant Registrar 5 ITA No. 381/H/2021 Assessment Year – 2017-18 5 Date Initials Original dictation pad is enclosed at the end of file 1. Draft dictated on: 10.11.2021 Sr. PS/PS 2. Draft placed before author: 11.11.2021 Sr. PS/PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member: JM/AM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member: JM/AM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS: .11.2021 Sr. PS/PS 6. Order pronounced on: .11.2021 Sr. PS/PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk: .11.2021 8. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk: Sr. PS/PS 9. Date on which file goes to AR 10. Date of dispatch of Order: