RAHUL JAGANNATH BANDAL,PUNE V. THE DCIT, CIRCLE 12, PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1382/PUN/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Rahul Jagannath Bandal, a Non-resident Indian, who appealed against the order of the Addl./JCIT(A), Vadodara, which denied him a TDS credit of Rs.2,29,099 despite it being reflected in Form No.26AS. The initial appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) as being barred by limitation. The ITAT found that the delay in filing the appeal was not intentional and was due to the assessee's ongoing rectification application under section 154 of the Act. The Tribunal noted the importance of considering the appeal on merits over technical grounds of limitation and thus condoned the delay and restored the matter for a fresh examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 315835 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: INDIRA ADAKIL
• Assessee Lawyers: BALAJI V
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; TDS

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1382/PUN/2024 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Rahul Jagannath Bandal, Survey No.3, Vitthal Nagar, Near Vitthal Mandir, Pune City, Pune Vadgaon Sheri S.O.-411014 Maharashtra PAN : AIDPB2659R Vs. DCIT, Circle-12, Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 is directed against the order dated 24.04.2024 passed by Addl./JCIT(A), Vadodara u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) arising out of the Intimation order dated 06.03.2020 passed u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act. 2. This is the second round before this Tribunal inasmuch as the earlier exparte order of the Tribunal was recalled by the Tribunal vide M.A.No.73/PUN/2024 order dated 25.03.2025. Appellant by : Shri Balaji V (through virtual) Respondent by : Mrs. Indira Adakil Date of hearing : 07.05.2025 Date of pronouncement : 16.05.2025 ITA No.1382/PUN/2024 Rahul Jagannath Bandal 2 3. The assessee has raised four grounds of appeal but the sole grievance is that the TDS credit of Rs.2,29,099/- has not been allowed to the assessee eventhough duly reflected in Form No.26AS. 4. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that CPC erred in denying the tax credit by wrongly applying clause (vi) of section 143(1)(a) eventhough the clause was omitted from A.Y. 2018-19. He referred to plethora of decisions placed in the paper book. He also submitted that the delay before ld.CIT(A) was not intentional and since assessee was pursuing the rectification application u/s.154 of the Act for getting due credit of tax of TDS, said delay has occurred. He further submitted that since the issue is small therefore eventhough the order of ld.CIT(A) is not on merits, same can be adjudicated by this Hon’ble Tribunal and in support he referred to certain decisions placed in the paper book. 5. On the other hand, ld. Departmental Representative stated that the matter needs to be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) if the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 6. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused the record placed before us. Assessee is aggrieved with the denial of tax credit of Rs.2,29,099/- eventhough the said credit is duly reflected in Form No.26AS. We observe that the assessee in its return of income furnished on 18.07.2018 declaring total income of Rs.2,95,000/- and claimed the TDS at Rs.3,29,703/- but when the return was processed the TDS credit was limited upto Rs.1,00,604/-. Now the assessee in this case is a Non-resident Indian. Now ITA No.1382/PUN/2024 Rahul Jagannath Bandal 3 the TDS credit appearing in Form No.26AS of the assessee has been claimed at Rs.3,29,703/- but was allowed only to the extent of Rs.1,00,604/-. Assessee filed the rectification application u/s.154 of the Act but the same was not allowed. Copy of the same is placed at pages 47 to 49 of the paper book. This process took lot of time and in the meantime time limit for filing appeal before ld.CIT(A) has expired. Though the assessee preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) the same was dismissed in limine being barred by limitation by three years. We considering the facts and circumstances of the case find that the delay was not intentional and the assessee would not have benefitted by filing the appeal belatedly. Hon’ble courts in plethora of judgments observed that when consideration of an appeal on merits is pitted against the rejection of a meritorious claim on the technical ground of the bar of limitation, the Courts lean towards consideration on merits by adopting a liberal approach towards ‘sufficient cause’ to condone the delay. The Court considering an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act may also look into the prima facie merits of an appeal. A liberal approach may be adopted when some plausible cause for delay is shown. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) condoned delay of 1537 days sub-serving the cause of justice. It was held so while observing that delay in filing the appeal by the appellant was unintentional, much less due to any deliberate laches, and was well-explained by the State before the High Court. Hon’ble Court further held that in cases where the merits are significant, a more liberal approach may be adopted to allow for the examination of the case on its merits. Considering the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Court ITA No.1382/PUN/2024 Rahul Jagannath Bandal 4 in the case of Inder Singh (supra), we are of the view that there was ‘reasonable cause’ which prevented the assessee in filing the appeal within the stipulated time. We therefore condone the delay in filing of appeal before ld.CIT(A). 7. Ideally the matter needs to be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) since nothing has been dealt with on merits of the case in the instant case. We find that firstly the issue of Tax Credit availability is to be verified from Form No.26AS and secondly the legality of adjustment made by CPC passed under the provisions of section 143(1)(a)(vi) of the Act which have already been omitted from A.Y. 2018-19 and under these given facts and circumstances, the matter deserves to be restored to the file of Learned Jurisdictional Assessing Officer for denovo proceeding before whom the assessee shall furnish the requisite details in support of his claim of TDS credit. Needless to say that the ld. JAO shall afford reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and then to decide in accordance with law. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 16th day of May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 16th May, 2025. Satish ITA No.1382/PUN/2024 Rahul Jagannath Bandal 5 आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. "