SUPER PRIME CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD.,JAIPUR V. ACIT, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 880/JPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Super Prime Construction Private Limited, which appealed against the order of the ld. Addl/JCIT(A), Thiruvanantpuram, concerning the denial of TDS credit of Rs.16,58,242 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The TDS was related to contract receipts from M/s. Manglam Build Developers, which the assessee claimed had been disclosed in the audited financial statement of the preceding assessment year, A.Y 2015-16. The Assessing Officer had denied the TDS claim, leading to the appeal. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur, found that the assessee had indeed disclosed the contract receipts and offered the income for tax in the previous year, thus meriting the TDS credit either in the previous or the current assessment year.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 713165 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: P.C. PARWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; TDS; FORM 26AS
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCHES “SMC”, JAIPUR BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA. No. 880/JPR/2024 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Super Prime Construction Private Limited, Kalani & Company Chartered Accountants, 5th Floor, Milestone Building, Gandhinagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur 302015, Rajasthan PAN : AACCK0686M Vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Addl/JCIT(A), Thiruvanantpuram dated 16.04.2024 which is arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 17.12.2018 for A.Y 2016-17 framed by ACIT, Circle- 03, Jaipur. 2. I note that the Registry has issued a defect notice stating that appeal fees of only Rs. 500/- has been paid as against of Rs. 10,000/- payable for filing the appeal. Appellant by : Shri P.C. Parwal, CA Respondent by : Shri Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT Date of hearing : 03.07.2025 Date of pronouncement : 29.07.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.880/JPR/2024 Super Prime Construction Pvt. Ltd. 2 3. From perusal of the assessment order, I notice that the return of income of the assessee has been accepted and only the TDS credit of Rs.16,58,242/- has been denied. Considering these facts and circumstances, I find that the case of the assessee falls u/s 253(6)(d) of the Act and therefore, appeal fees payable by the assessee is only Rs. 500/- and therefore, there is no short payment of appeal fees. Now I proceed to adjudicate the appeal. 4. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal. 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not allowing the credit of TDS to the extent of Rs. 16,58,242/- by not considering the fact that income pertaining to the said TDS has been offered for tax by the assessee in the previous A.Y. 2. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 3. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.” 5. I have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before me. I note that the assessee is a Private Limited company and income of Rs. 28,24,980/- declared in the return e-filed on 29.09.2016. During the course of assessment proceedings which was carried out under the limited scrutiny, it was found that the assessee is engaged in the Civil Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.880/JPR/2024 Super Prime Construction Pvt. Ltd. 3 Construction works on contractorship basis. Ld. AO while examining the TDS details as per Form 26AS found that the contract receipt from M/s. Manglam Build Developers are at Rs.11,22,42,164/- whereas the assessee has shown the revenue only Rs.2,93,30,076/-. It was claimed by the assessee before Assessing Officer that the difference of the above two sums of Rs.8,29,12,088/- has already been disclosed in the audited Financial Statement of preceding assessment year i.e. 2015-16 but the tax deductor did not deduct the tax during the preceding year but deducted the tax on the total contract receipt of Rs.11.22 Crore (approx) in the year under consideration. However, ld. Assessing Officer was not satisfied and denied the claim of TDS of Rs.16,58,242/- proportionately on contract receipt basis. 6. Further, the assessee failed to get any relief from ld. CIT(A). I further note that the Revenue authority have not disputed the fact that the contract receipt of Rs.8,29,12,088/- has been disclosed in the financial statement for A.Y 2015-16 and the income earned therefrom has been offered to tax. Now under these facts and circumstances, ld. AO should have either given the benefit of TDS of Rs.16,58,242/- against the tax liability for A.Y 2015-16 or should allow the TDS claim of Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.880/JPR/2024 Super Prime Construction Pvt. Ltd. 4 Rs. 16,58,242/- for the year under consideration. With these directions the impugned order is set aside and grounds so raised by the assessee are allowed. Ld. Assessing Officer is directed to give necessary effect as referred above. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 29th day of July, 2025. Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER \u0001दनांक / Dated : 29th July, 2025. Ganesh/Satish 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, Jaipur / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Jaipur 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Jaipur Printed from counselvise.com "