NIXA FINCAP PVT. LTD., MUMBAI,MUMBAI V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

MA 23/RPR/2025

AI Insights

Nixa Fincap Private Limited filed a miscellaneous application arising from an earlier ITA decision, seeking to address issues related to the non-credit of TDS and disallowance of PF contributions. The Tribunal had previously remanded these issues to the Assessing Officer for verification against updated Form 26AS and original challans. The Tribunal dismissed the application, stating that it constituted an impermissible review of its earlier decision, referencing the Supreme Court's stance that a mistake apparent on the record must be obvious and not require extensive reasoning.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 786469 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Ishwarlal Mali Rathod Vs. Gopal and Ors., T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: ITS SUBMISSION DATED .. INFORMED
• Keywords: Set aside; TDS; FORM 26AS

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण Ûयायपीठ रायपुर मɅ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. No.23/RPR/2025 (Arising out of ITA No.170/RPR/2025) Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Nixa Fincap Private Limited (Formerly known as Xander Finance Private Limited) Unit No.2503, 25th Floor, One Lodha Place, Senapati Bapat Marg, Delisle Road, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400 013 (Maharashtra) PAN: AAACC9304N ……….. आवेदक/Applicant बनाम / V/s. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……Ĥ×यथȸ / Respondent Assessee by : None (Adjournment Petition) Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख / Date of Hearing : 17.11.2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख / Date of Pronouncement : 17.11.2025 Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No.23/RPR/2025 A.Y.2020-21 आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: The captioned Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the assessee arising out of ITA No.170/RPR/2025 for assessment year 2020- 21 u/s. 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) vide order of Tribunal dated 18.06.2025. 2. At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee. However, an adjournment petition has been filed which is rejected. The matter was heard after recording the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR and on careful perusal of the material available on record following the directives of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ishwarlal Mali Rathod Vs. Gopal and Ors., passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 14117-14118 of 2021, order dated 20.09.2021. 3. The assessee by filing the captioned miscellaneous application has raised following grounds: Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No.23/RPR/2025 A.Y.2020-21 Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA No.23/RPR/2025 A.Y.2020-21 4. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that nothing has been submitted by the assessee pointing out any mistake apparent from the order of the Tribunal. It was submitted by the Ld. Sr. DR that the order passed by the Tribunal is well-reasoned and the same does not call for any intervene as per Section 254(2) of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 5 MA No.23/RPR/2025 A.Y.2020-21 5. We have carefully considered the contents of the miscellaneous application and it is discernable that the assessee in the garb of the present miscellaneous application filed u/s.254(2) of the Act is seeking review of the decision of the Tribunal which is not permitted within the jurisdiction as provided within the said provision of the Act. 6. The Tribunal while passing the order in the case of the assessee in ITA No.170/RPR/2025, dated 18.06.2025 has held and observed as follows: “This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 28.01.2025 for the assessment year 2020-21 as per the following grounds of appeal: “1. Short grant of TDS credit 1.1. On facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in upholding the order of the Central Processing Centre (intimation order passed under section 143(1) of the Act) of not granting credit of TDS deducted by the deductor amounting to Rs.4,73,13,590 solely on the ground that credit of such TDS is not reflecting in Form 26AS. 1.2. On facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) erred in not considering the4' provisions of Section 205 of the Act, per which the assessee should not be called upon to pay the tax on the income to the extent the deductor has already deducted tax from that income. 2. Disallowing deduction of Rs.6,71,222 was paid to Provident Fund within the due date 2.1. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in not allowing the deduction for contribution to Provident Fund claimed by the Company in the return of income, while paging the appellate order under section 250 of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com 6 MA No.23/RPR/2025 A.Y.2020-21 2.2. The Appellant prays that the Learned AO be directed to allow deduction of Rs.6,71,222 as the said amount was paid within the due date. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, omit or substitute any or all of the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or at the time of the appeal.” 2. The brief facts in this case are that the assessee is a non- banking financial company and derives income from business of lending and providing finance. The assessee company has filed its return of income for A.Y.2020-21 on 15.02.2021, declaring total income of Rs.39,18,42,890/-. Thereafter, the A.O/CPC, Bengaluru passed an intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act, dated 29.12.2021, making certain adjustments/raising tax payable over and above the returned income/tax payable. It is noted from the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act that the adjustments were made mainly on two issues viz. (i) credit of TDS as claimed in ITR not allowed : Rs.4,73,13,590/-; and (ii) employee’s contribution to PF disallowed u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act although the same was paid within due dates specified in the PF Act : Rs.6,71,222/-. 3. That being further aggrieved, the assessee company carried the matter in appeal before the first appellate authority. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC remanded the matter to the file of JAO with a direction to verify and examine the updated Form 26AS as regards credit of TDS and also to examine and verify original challans of deposits of the respective amounts as regards employee’s contribution to PF. For the sake of completeness, the observations of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC are culled out as follows: “5. DECISION:- 5.1 I have carefully gone through the Intimation u/s.143(1), the grounds of appeal and submission made by the appellant in this regard. Briefly stating facts of the case is that the appellant filed return of income which was processed u/s.143(1) by CPC making certain adjustments over and above the returned income. Adjustments were made mainly on two issues — (i) credit of TDS as claimed in ITR not allowed and (ii) employee's contribution to PF disallowed u/s.36(1)(va) although paid within due dates specified in the PF Act. 5.2 The appellant by its submission dated 21.10.2024 informed that subsequent to filing of this appeal, its case was taken up for scrutiny assessment and order u/s.143(3) read with sec. 144B of the Act was passed on 27.09.2022. This order u/s.143(3) was Printed from counselvise.com 7 MA No.23/RPR/2025 A.Y.2020-21 again rectified u/s.154 of the Act by the jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO) by order dated 22.08.2023. The appellant stated that in these orders, although a further amount of TDS claimed in ITR was given credit, but still some amount of TDS was yet to be given credit. It also stated that the issue of addition on account of delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF also remained unresolved. The appellant therefore requested to restrict the grounds of appeal to that extent. 5.3 Appellant's submission has been examined. As regard the issue of non credit of TDS is concerned, it may be stated that TDS/TCS credit is allowed to an assessee on the basis of Form 26AS for such assessee. The figures of receipts and corresponding TDS/TCS gets updated every time the deductor uploads the information. So updation of Form 26AS is a continuous process. The JAO is therefore directed to examine and verify the updated Form 26AS and allow credit of TDS as available therein. This ground of appeal is therefore allowed subject to such verification. 5.4 On the issue of employee's contribution to PF for Rs.6,71,222/-, the appellant has claimed that the disallowance was made due to reporting of incorrect dates of deposit in the tax audit report (TAR). The dates as per TAR was given as 12.08.2020 and 10.09.2020 instead of actual dates of 12.08.2019 and 10.09.2019 respectively. In this regard, the JAG is directed to examine and verify from the original challans of deposit of the respective amounts and rectify the order if appellant's claim is found to be correct. This ground of appeal is therefore allowed subject to such verification. In result, the appeal is allowed subject to verification as mentioned above.” 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the A.O and Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has erred in not granting credit of TDS deducted by the deductor on the ground that credit of such TDS was not reflecting in Form 26AS. It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that there was default on the part of the deductor, for which, the assessee should not suffer any tax liability. 5. The Ld. Sr. DR for the revenue relying on the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC submitted that the issue was rightly decided by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC by directing the A.O to verify the available credits in accordance with data available in Form 26AS of the assessee. It was also submitted by the Ld. Sr. DR that since the matter has been remanded to the A.O, then the assessee can claim the eligible credits before the A.O. Accordingly, the Ld. Sr. Printed from counselvise.com 8 MA No.23/RPR/2025 A.Y.2020-21 DR submitted that the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC deserves to be confirmed. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions of the parties herein and perused the material available on record. On perusal of Para. 5.3 of order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, it is noted that as regards non-credit of TDS, the figures of receipts and corresponding TDS/TCS gets updated every time the deductor uploads the information and therefore, updation of Form 26AS is a continuous process. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had correctly set aside the issue to the file of the A.O with a direction to examine and verify the updated Form 26AS and allow credit of TDS as available therein. Accordingly, we concur with the view taken by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC in setting aside the matter back to the file of the A.O for verification and adjudication as per law. The order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC is therefore upheld. 7. As regards, the issue of disallowance of employee’s contribution to PF, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC remanded the issue back to the file of the A.O with a direction to examine and verify from the original challans of deposit of the respective amounts and adjudicate thereafter as per law. In this regard also, we concur with the view taken by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The same is upheld. 8. As per the above terms grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.” 7. The Tribunal in its own wisdom had concurred with the view taken by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. The Tribunal had not found any reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, hence, it was upheld and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. We are of the considered view that the plea taken by the assessee through this miscellaneous application amounts to review of the order of the Tribunal which is beyond the scope of Section 254(2) of the Act. That further, the assessee even objected to the findings arrived at by the Tribunal which Printed from counselvise.com 9 MA No.23/RPR/2025 A.Y.2020-21 again tantamount to review of its own order by the Tribunal which is not permissible within the ambit of Section 254(2) of the Act. The aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Balaram, ITO v. Volkart Bros., (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had held as under: \" ....A mistake apparent on the record must be an obvious and patent mistake and not something which can be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points on which there may conceivably be two opinions. As seen earlier, the High Court of Bombay opined that the original assessments were in accordance with law though in our opinion the High Court was not justified in going into that question.......an error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. A decision on debatable point of law is not a mistake apparent from the record........\" Also, a similar view had been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (IT-4) Vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd., (2021) 133 taxmann.com 41 (SC), wherein it was held as under: \"From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court has dismissed the writ petitions by observing that (i) the Revenue itself had in detail gone into merits of the case before the ITAT and the parties filed detailed submissions based on which the ITAT passed its order recalling its earlier order; (ii) the Revenue had not contended that the ITAT had become functus officio after delivering its original order and that if it had to relook/revisit the order, it must be for limited purpose as permitted by Section 254(2) of the Act; and (iii) that the merits might have been decided erroneously but ITAT had the jurisdiction and within its powers it may pass an erroneous order and that such objections had not been raised before ITAT. Printed from counselvise.com 10 MA No.23/RPR/2025 A.Y.2020-21 6. None of the aforesaid grounds are tenable in law. Merely because the Revenue might have in detail gone into the merits of the case before the ITAT and merely because the parties might have filed detailed submissions, it does not confer jurisdiction upon the ITAT to pass the order de hors Section 254(2) of the Act. As observed hereinabove, the powers under Section 254(2) of the Act are only to correct and/or rectify the mistake apparent from the record and not beyond that.” 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and on careful perusal of the judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that as the assessee in the garb of the present application filed u/s.254(2) of the Act had, in fact, sought for a review of the order so passed by the Tribunal, which as observed by us hereinabove does not fall within the realm of the powers vested with it u/s.254(2) of the Act. Accordingly, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee u/s.254(2) of the Act is dismissed in terms of the aforesaid observations. 9. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee being devoid and bereft of any merits is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th day of November, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; Ǒदनांक / Dated : 17th November, 2025. SB, Sr. PS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ /The Appellant. Printed from counselvise.com 11 MA No.23/RPR/2025 A.Y.2020-21 2. Ĥ×यथȸ /The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर बɅच, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 5. गाड[ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur. Printed from counselvise.com "