KRISHAN BATRA,FATEHABAD V. ITO WARD 1, AYAKAR BHAWAN SIRSA ROAD

ITA 1546/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Krishan Batra, a commission agent for food grains, who appealed against the denial of full TDS credit by the CPC for the Assessment Year 2023-24. The CPC had allowed only a proportionate credit of TDS claimed by the assessee, citing that the gross receipts against which TDS was deducted were not fully reflected in the Profit & Loss Account. The assessee's rectification request under section 154 was rejected, leading to the appeal before the CIT(A), which was also rejected on technical grounds. The Tribunal, however, focused on the substantive issue of the assessee's entitlement to the full TDS credit as per Form 26AS, irrespective of the financial reporting of gross receipts.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 837799 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2023-2024
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN LD.
• Assessee Lawyers: J. P. GOYAL LD. VIRTUAL
• Keywords: TDS; FORM 26AS
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

"1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, CHANDIGARH HYBRID HEARING BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1546/CHANDI/2025 (िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year: 2023-24) Shri Krishan Batra 114A, Anaj Mandi, Fatehbad Haryana - 125050 बनाम/ Vs. ITO Ward 1 Manju Complex Fatehabad – 125 050 ˕ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AKGPB-9656-H (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) : (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) अपीलाथŎकीओरसे/Appellant by : Sh. J. P. Goyal (CA) – Ld. AR (Virtual) ŮȑथŎकीओरसे/Respondent by : Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 18-02-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 19/02/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2023- 24 arises out of an order of learned Addl. / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysore dated 26-09-2025 in the matter of a rectification intimation as issued by CPC u/s 154 on 21-06-2024. The sole grievance of the assessee is denial of tax credit for Rs.69,012/-. Having heard rival submissions, the appeal is disposed-off as under. Printed from counselvise.com 2 2. The assessee is engaged as commission agent for food grains mainly as a Kaccha Arahita. In the return of income, the assessee claimed credit of TDS for Rs.96,596 as deducted by various parties u/s 194A, 194C, 194H and 194Q. However, CPC, in an intimation u/s 143(1), denied full TDS credit on the ground that the gross receipts against which TDS was deducted was not reflected fully in the Profit & Loss Account. Hence, only proportionate credit of Rs.27,584/- was allowed out of Rs.96,596/- as claimed by the assessee. The assessee filed rectification u/s 154 which stood rejected by CPC against which the assessee preferred further appeal. The Ld. CIT(A) rejected the appeal on the technical ground that though the appeal was filed against rectification intimation u/s 154, the grounds of appeal related to passing of an order u/s 143(1). Separate appeals must be filed for different orders. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. It clearly emerges that the sole grievance of the assessee is denial of full TDS credit as reflected in Form 26AS. The CPC, while processing the return of income u/s 143(1), allowed only proportionate credit on the ground that gross receipts on which TDS was deducted was not fully offered to Tax. The assessee sought rectification of the same u/s 154 which also rejected. The sole grievance of the assessee, in both the intimations, is common i.e., denial of full TDS credit. Therefore, the approach of Ld. CIT(A) in rejecting the appeal on technical ground was not a correct approach. Printed from counselvise.com 3 4. From the pleadings of Ld. AR, it emerges that the assessee has acted as a Kaccha Arhtia only. The assessee receives payment on behalf of the others and offer commission from such activity. Thus, the full gross receipts as reflected in Form 26AS may not be offered to tax since only commission income would constitute revenue for the assessee. The differential receipts would never be offered to tax as revenue receipts. Nevertheless, TDS has been deducted against assessee’s payment and it is the assessee’s money which has been deducted by the payers. Therefore, the credit of the same would certainly be available to the assessee. The turnover or other financial results are not in dispute. The provisions under which TDS has been deducted would not hold much relevance in such a case. Therefore, CPC is directed to grant full TDS credit to the assessee as available in Form 26AS. 5. The appeal stands allowed. Order pronounced on 19/02/2026 Sd/- Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 19/02/2026 आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत /Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/Respondent 3. आयकरआयुƅ/CIT 4. िवभागीयŮितिनिध/DR 5. गाडŊफाईल/GF ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT CHANDIGARH Printed from counselvise.com "