SAVADIKA RETAIL PRIVATE LIMITED,GURGAON, HARYANA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, GURGAON, HARYANA

ITA 2753/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Savadika Retail Private Limited, which appealed against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) pertaining to the Assessment Years 2022-23 and 2023-24. The primary issue was the restriction of TDS credit by the Central Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru, due to alleged discrepancies between the turnover reported in the income tax return and Form 26AS. The Assessee argued that the TDS was correctly claimed as per Form 26AS. The Tribunal referenced a similar case (Shri Gopikishan Pallod Hyderabad Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1), Hyderabad) where it was decided in favor of the Assessee, leading to the decision to allow the TDS credit as claimed by Savadika Retail.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 783701 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Shri Gopikishan Pallod Hyderabad Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1), Hyderabad
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUMAR DHANESTA
• Assessee Lawyers: ARIHANT TATER; VIBHOR
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income; TDS; FORM 26AS

Judgement Text

"1 ITA Nos. 2753 & 2754/Del/2025 Savadika Retial Pvt. Ltd. vs. DDIT IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [ DELHI BENCH : “B” NEW DELHI] BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 2753/DEL/2025 (A.Y 2022-23) I.T.A. No. 2754/DEL/2025 (A.Y 2023-24) Savadika Retail Private Limited, Unit No. 406 B2 & 406 C, 4th floor, Centrum Plaza, Golf Course Road, Sector-53, Grugaon, Haryana PAN: AAXCS8821M Vs. Deputy Director of Income Tax, Central Processing centre, Bengaluru, Karnataka PIN: 560100 Appellant Respondent Assessee by Sh. Arihant Tater, Adv and Sh. Vibhor Sharma, Adv Revenue by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03/11/2025 Date of Pronouncement 07/11/2025 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR, U.S. JM: The captioned Appeals are filed by the Assessee against the orders of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/Addl/JCIT(A)-1 Nashik (‘Ld. CIT(A’ for short), New Delhi dated 24/02/2025 pertaining to Assessment Years 2022-23 and 2023-24 respectively. 2. The solitary grievance of the Assessee in both the Appeals are on the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the order of the CPC by restricting the TDS credit based on turnover discrepancies between return income and Form 26AS, even though the Assessee has claimed TDS correctly as per Form 26AS. The Ld. Counsel vehemently submitted that the above issue involved in the present Appeal is squarely covered by the order of the Tribunal Hyderabad Bench dated Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA Nos. 2753 & 2754/Del/2025 Savadika Retial Pvt. Ltd. vs. DDIT 25/06/2025 in ITA No. 568/Hyd/2025, in the case of Shri GopikishanPallod Hyderabad Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1), Hyderabad. Further submitted that in the said case, the Assessee therein is similarly placed to the Appellant herein after looking into the business model of the Assessee directed the A.O. to allow credit for TDS as per Form 26AS filed by the Assessee. Thus, sought for allowing the present Appeal. 3. The Ld. Department's Representative relying on the orders of the Lower Authorities sought for dismissal of the Appeal. 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Assessee was carrying principal activity of wholesale and retail goods. In both the Appeals the CPC, Bengaluru restricted the TDS credit on the ground that there was turnover discrepancies between return of income and Form No. 26AS. It is the specific case of the Assessee that the Assessee has claimed the TDS correctly as per 26AS. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal Hyderabad Bench in an identical situation, and similarly placed assessee vide order dated 25/06/2025 in ITA No. 568/Hyd/2025, in the case of Shri GopikishanPallod Hyderabad Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 7(1), Hyderabad held as under:- “9. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the relevant material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Provisions of section 194 O of the Act deals with payment of certain sums by e-commerce operators to e- Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA Nos. 2753 & 2754/Del/2025 Savadika Retial Pvt. Ltd. vs. DDIT commerce participants. As per the said provision, where sale of goods or provision of service of an e-commerce participant is facilitated by e-commerce operator, such e-commerce operator at the time of credit of amount or at the time of payment whichever is earlier deduct income tax @ 1% of the gross amount of such sale or service of goods. In the present case, the appellant is an ecommerce participant and selling goods through Amazon Seller Services (P) Ltd and Reliance Retail Ltd etc., The appellant has made a turnover of Rs.1,39,42,905.95 through e-commerce operators on which TDS @ 1% has been deducted by the ecommerce platform operators. Out of the above sale, the assessee has shown sales return of Rs.23,87,202.48 and the net sales turnover declared by the assessee for the year under consideration was at Rs.1,15,55,703.47. The assessee has claimed TDS credit of Rs.1,62,412/- on the basis of Form No.26AS. The Assessing Officer CPC, allowed the proportionate credit for TDS at Rs.1,38,211/- and according to the Assessing Officer CPC as per Rule 37BA of the I.T Rules,1962 credit for TDS shall be allowed in the year in which income relatable to said TDS has been declared. 10. We find that, the assessee has reported the income relatable to TDS credit of Rs.1,62,412/- for the year consideration. However, the Assessing Officer misunderstood the facts and observed that the assessee has reported only part of the turnover and not entire turnover on which TDS has been deducted, only on the basis of the turnover reported in financial statement, even though the assessee has reconciled the said turnover with sales return. The assessee has reported sales return of Rs.23,87,202/- on which TDS has been deducted by the ecommerce platform operators. If we consider gross sales, sales return and net sales declared by the assessee, it tallies with the total sales achieved through e-commerce platform operators on which TDS has been deducted. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the Assessing Officer is erred in allowing credit for TDS on proportionate basis, even though the assessee has offered the income in total for the year under consideration. The reasons for the Assessing Officer to allow proportionate TDS is difference in turnover as per Form 26AS and turnover reported in the books. The assessee has explained the said difference with the sales return. If we consider sale return, then the turnover declared by the assessee tallies with the turnover reported in Form 26AS with reference to TDS credit as per section 194 O of the Act. Although, these facts has been explained to the learned CIT (A), but the learned CIT (A) based on assumption and presumption rejected the explanation of the assessee on the ground that if at all sales turnover is there, then the assessee must have replaced with other goods or refund gross amount including TDS amount. In our considered view, the TDS has been deducted by the e-platform Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA Nos. 2753 & 2754/Del/2025 Savadika Retial Pvt. Ltd. vs. DDIT operators at the time of sales whereas the money is returned to the buyer after e-platform operators deducted TDS. Therefore, in our considered view, the reasons given by the learned CIT (A) to reject the explanation of the assessee is on assumption and presumption, but not based on fact. Since the assessee has explained the reasons for difference in turnover and further made out a case that the total income pertains to TDS credit of Rs.1,62,412/- has been offered to tax for the year under consideration, in our considered view, the Assessing Officer ought to have allowed TDS of Rs.1,62,412/- as per Form 26AS. The learned CIT (A) without considering the relevant facts, has simply upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. Thus, we set aside the order of the learned CIT (A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow credit for TDS of Rs.1,62,412/- as per Form No.26AS filed by the assessee.” By respectfully following the order of the Tribunal in the case ofShri GopikishanPallod (supra), thus, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to allow credit for TDS as per Form No. 26AS filed by the Assessee in both the Assessment Years under consideration. 5. In the result, both the Appeals of the Assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07th November, 2025 Sd/- Sd/- (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 07 .11.2025 R.N, Sr.P.S* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA Nos. 2753 & 2754/Del/2025 Savadika Retial Pvt. Ltd. vs. DDIT Printed from counselvise.com "