S B DEVELOPERS,AHMEDABAD V. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

ITA 2052/AHD/2024

AI Insights

S B Developers appealed against the order of the CIT(A)-6, Chennai, which had dismissed their earlier appeal regarding the intimation order under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The intimation order had restricted the TDS credit claimed by the assessee from Rs.18,44,033 to Rs.13,82,187, citing discrepancies between the gross receipts shown in Form No.26AS and the total receipts offered to tax in the return. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not properly considered the receipts for the last two years and directed a re-examination to ensure correct TDS credit was applied.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 112300 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2023-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KAVAN LIMBASIYA
• Assessee Lawyers: ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FILED
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 143(1); 191

Judgement Text

"ITA No.2052/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2023-24 S B Developers vs. ITO Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE DR. BRR KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2052/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2023-24 S B Developers, 1010, 10th Floor, Atma House, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad – 380 009. [PAN – ACVFS 3592 G] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1(1)(1), Ahmedabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Adjournment Application filed Revenue by Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 12.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 17.04.2025 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order dated 19.09.2024, passed by the CIT(A)-6, Chennai for Assessment Year 2023-24. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1.0 The CIT(A) ought to have held that intimation prepared by the assessing officer i.e. Dy. Commissioner of Income tax CPC, Ahmedabad is bad in law. The Intimation has been prepared mechanically without application of mind and ignoring the facts and submissions. The intimation is outside purview of provisions of section 143(1)(1). The intimation be quashed. 1.1 The denial of credit of TDS of Rs.4,61,846/- is not permissible while preparing Intimation under section 143(1). The adjustment does not fall within any of the clause under section 143(1) 2.0 The CIT(A) ought to have held that the assessing officer erred in not allowing credit in respect of tax deducted at source of Rs.18,44,033/- being tax deducted at source as per 26AS and provisions of section 199 ITA No.2052/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2023-24 S B Developers vs. ITO Page 2 of 3 and also rule 37BA. The AO be directed to allow credit of tax deducted at source of Rs.18,44,033/- 2.1 The appellant submits that under the facts and the law the appellant is entitled to credit of Rs.18,44,033/-. The appellant submits that the AO has committed an error of law and error of fact in allowing credit of the TDS only at Rs.13,82,167/-. The appellant submits that it be so held now. 2.2 The appellant without prejudice to above submits that application of Rule 37BA has been erroneously applied by the assessing officer. The appellant submits that it be so held now. Your appellant prays for leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw all or any of the grounds of appeal before the final hearing of the appeal. 3. The assessee is engaged in the business of construction and sale of immovable property and filed its original return of income on 12.10.2023 at a total income of Rs1,10,85,830/-. The assessee paid taxes to the tune of Rs.40,04,033/- of which TDS has been claimed of Rs.18,44,033/-. The same was processed by the DDIT, CPC vide intimation order under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 09.01.2024 wherein DDIT, CPC restricted the claim of TDS to the extent of Rs.13,82,187/- as per Rule 37BA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The CPC has restricted the said TDS credit with the remark that the gross receipts shown in Form No.26AS are higher than the total of the receipts offered to the tax under various heads in the return. 4. Aggrieved by the short credit of TDS, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. There is a delay of 5 days in filing the present appeal. The same is condoned. At the time of hearing, the assessee filed adjournment application, the same is rejected. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order as well as the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that prima facie it appears that the Assessing Officer has not allowed credit in respect of tax deducted at source of Rs.18,44,033/- as per 26AS and which is in consonance with the provisions of Section 191 of the Act and also as ITA No.2052/Ahd/2024 Assessment Year: 2023-24 S B Developers vs. ITO Page 3 of 3 per Rule 37BA. The matter is remanded back to the Assessing Officer to consider the receipts for the last two years and, after verifying the same, the assessee be given credit of TDS as per the records. Thus, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 17th April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. BRR KUMAR) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Vice President Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 17th April, 2025 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad "