PENINSULA DATA SECURE PVT LTD,NEW DELHI V. CENTRAL CIRCLE, 14 DELHI, NEW DELHI

ITA 1003/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Peninsula Data Secure Pvt. Ltd., which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi, confirming a rectification order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The rectification reduced the TDS claim by Rs. 38,102 due to discrepancies between the income reported in the tax return and the income captured in Form 26AS. The Tribunal noted that the difference was attributable to income from earlier years received in the current year, and thus the TDS related to this income should be credited in the current year. The Tribunal restored the matter to the AO for verification of the TDS claim.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 668769 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHEERAJ KUMAR JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: DECISION
• Keywords: TDS; Rectification of order; FORM 26AS
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

"1 THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH “E”DELHI BEFORESHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.1003/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2021-22 Peninsula Data Secure Pvt. Ltd., 5B 3rd Floor, Community Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi Vs. Central Circle 14 Delhi New Delhi PAN No.AAECP0801D (Appellant) (Respondent) ORDER PERSUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The assessee preferred the captioned appeal, challenging the order dated 27.12.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-26, New Delhi (In short “CIT(A)”), Delhi pertaining to assessment order for Assessment year 2021-22 dated Assessee by None Department by Sh. Dheeraj Kumar Jain, Sr. DR Date of hearing 26.06.2025 Date of pronouncement 26.06.2025 2 07.06.2023passed under Section154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act for short”). 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the rectification order u/s 154 dated 07.06.2023 passed by CPC, Bengaluru thereby confirming the lesser allowance of TDS claimed by Rs 38,102/-. 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the claim of TDS of Rs 38,102/- should have been allowed by Ld. CIT (A). 3. Without prejudice to the grounds mentioned above, considering the facts of the case that in the Rectification Order u/s 154 for two times the CPC, Bengaluru has accepted the claim of TDS amount of Rs 38,102/-, This itself shows that the issue involved is clearly a debatable issue and hence cannot be rectified u/s 154. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is in the business of record storage for banks and other entities. The assessee filed an income tax return for the Assessment Year 2021-22 or June, 7 2023, declaring a total income of Rs.61,03,740/-. Subsequently, a rectification order under section 154, dated 07.06.2023, was passed. In this order proportionate credit for TDS amounting to Rs.3,88,024/- 3 was allowed based on different in the income shown in the return of income and the income captured in Form 26AS. This adjustment reduced the TDS claim by Rs.38,102/-. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee is in appeal before CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: Decision : “5.1 In this case the credit of TDS was restricted to INR 3,88,024 as against the claim of INR 4,26,126. This has arisen primarily because of difference in income reported in the return of income filed for the Assessment year under consideration which was at INR 2,19,36,907 as against the income of INR 2,40,90,992 as shown in Form 26 AS. Appellant's main contention is that this difference is attributable to income pertaining to earlieryears which were received during the year under consideration. There is no dispute this position. The AO has allowed the TDS credit relating to the income of the assessment year under consideration. Alternatively, the TDS relating to Income of 4 earlier Assessment year has been disallowed as same would be allowable only in the assessment year in which such income was offered to tax. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the order of the AO. Hence, the order of the AO is upheld and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. 4. The Ld. DR fairly conceded to the orders of the authorities below. 5. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. 6. In this case the assessee claimed the TDS amounting to Rs. 4,26,126/- but the claimed was restricted amount to Rs. 3,87,335/-. The assessee has moved the rectification application which was rejected by the AO. Perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) reveals that the TDS claim was restricted on the basis of the difference of the income. Assessee’s main contention is that there shall always be difference in the amount credited as appearing in Form 26As and asaccounted for in the books of accounts because the same are maintained on mercantile system. The Ld. CIT(A) in his order 5 accepted the contention of the assessee that the difference is attributable to income pertaining to earlier years which were received during the year under consideration. The assessee has not claimed the TDS amount of Rs.38791/- in the prior years. The assessee is entitled for the credit of TDS of Rs. 38791/-. The TDS amount should be verified by the AO. In the interest of justice and fair play we deem fit to restore the file before the AO verify the claim of the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is liable to be allowed. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.06.2025 SD/- SD/- (MANISH AGARWAL) (SUDHIR KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *NEHA, Sr. PS* Date:-26.06.2025 Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(Appeals) ` 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI "