Haddock Propbuild Private Limited , New Delhi V. ITO ward-11(1), New Delhi

ITA 8911/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9125 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANOTHER
• Keywords: TDS; Set aside; FORM 26AS
• Section: 143(1); 250

Judgement Text

1 ITA No. 8911/Del/2019 Haddock Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 8911/DEL/2019 (A.Y 2017-18) Haddock Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. 306, 308, 3 rd Floor, Square One, C-2, District Centre, Saket, New Delhi PAN No. AABCH8126J (APPELLANT) Vs. ITO Ward-11(1) New Delhi. (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 26/09/2019 passed by CIT (A)-15, Delhi, for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- Assessee by : Sh. Salil Kapoor, Adv, Ms. Ananya Kapor, Adv and Sh. Amarbir Singh Walia, Adv Department by: Md. Gayasuddin Ansari, Sr DR Date of Hearing 21.07.2022 Date of Pronouncement 08.08.2022 2 ITA No. 8911/Del/2019 Haddock Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. “Ground No. 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 15, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)') has erred on facts and in law in passing the order dated 26-09-2019 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'The Act') towards the appeal filed against the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. Ground No. 2 : The Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred both in law and on fact in holding that the Central Processing Centre, Bengaluru (herein after referred as 'CPC') is correct in disallowing the Tax credit amounting to Rs. 3,41,286/- from the tax liability, despite the fact that such TDS is being deducted on the payment made to the appellant and is duly reflecting in its Form 26AS. However, merely income does not belong to the appellant, does not disentitle the appellant to claim the TDS credit. In this regard, the appellant has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax- 15 v. Relcom [2015] 62 taxmann.com 190 (Delhi) wherein it has been affirmed that the credit cannot be disallowed to the person on the mere ground that assessee has not shown the income in its income tax return. Ground No. 3 The Ld. CIT(A) has further erred in not providing the manner to claim the tax credit reflecting in the form 26AS of the appellant by another assessee. Also, there is a practical hinderance in claiming such TDS by other assessee to whom the income pertains as TDS credit is in 3 ITA No. 8911/Del/2019 Haddock Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. the name & PAN of the Appellant.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee has filed return declaring loss of Rs. 6,995/- while claiming refund amounting to Rs. 3,41,286/-. The CPC while proceeding the return of income has disallowed the TDS credit amounting to Rs. 3,41,281/- which was duly reflected in the Form No. 26AS and consequently rejected the refund claimed by the assessee. The assessee has challenged the disallowance of TDS by the CPC, challenged the same before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) has held as under vide order dated 26/09/2019. “From the detailed submissions made by the appellant, it is dear that e corresponding income has not been shown by the appellant in its Return us Income, for which the IDS credit has been claimed. Therefore, the AO is right in disallowing the credit for TDS, for which no income shown by the appellant company. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the A.O, CPC and therefore, the action of the A.O is hereby confirmed. In the result, appeal is hereby dismissed.” 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 26/09/2019, the assessee has preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 5. It is seen from the record that, Ld.CIT (A) has confirmed the order of the CPC contrary to the Section 143(1A) of the Act that before making such adjustment, the assessee should be put to notice. Since, there is no material to suggest that such notice has been issued by the CPC before doing such adjustment will vitiate the entire proceedings. Consequently, the adjustment made by the CPC is not sustainable under law. 4 ITA No. 8911/Del/2019 Haddock Propbuild Pvt. Ltd. 6. Even on the merit, the assessee has canvassed the fact and reasons as to where the said income is reflected but Ld.CIT(A) has not applied his mind and mechanically confirmed the order of the A.O. Therefore, in our opinion, if the matter is set aside to the file of the assessee A.O, the substantial justice would be rendered. Hence, we set aside the matter to the file of the A.O to decide the matter in accordance with law. 7. In result, the Appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 08 th August, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 08/08/2022 *R.N, SR.PS* Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI