TOMORROW CAPITAL ENTERPRISES PRIVATE LIMITED ,MUMBAI V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 7(3), MUMBAI

ITA 6989/MUM/2024

AI Insights

Tomorrow Capital Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. filed appeals against the orders of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 49, Mumbai, for the assessment years 2021-22 and 2022-23. The primary issue in dispute was the non-allowance of TDS credits amounting to Rs. 1,64,81,206 for the year 2021-22 and discrepancies in TDS credits for the year 2022-23. The appellant argued that despite TDS being deducted by the deductors, the amounts were not credited to the Central Government, and thus, they should be allowed the credit for these amounts in their tax assessments. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, after considering the submissions and relevant judicial precedents, directed the Assessing Officer to verify the TDS deductions and ensure that the appellant is not held liable for the TDS amounts that were not deposited by the deductors.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471365 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2022-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Yashpal Sahni vs. ACIT, Executors of the Estate of S. Shanmuga Mudaliar vs. ACIT, Ansuya Alva vs. DCIT, M/s Finance Ltd. vs. ACIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HEMANSHU JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVIKANT PATHAK
• Keywords: Question of law; Salary income; TDS; FORM 26AS
• Section: 143(1); 205; 234B

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA Nos. 6990 & 6989/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2021-22 & 2022-23 Tomorrow Capital Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., 3rd floor, N.M. Joshi Marg Lodha Excelus, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai-400011. Vs. DCIT-Central Circle-7(3), 655, Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN NO. AALCS 7775 C Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Ravikant Pathak Revenue by : Mr. Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 25/02/2025 Date of pronouncement : 25/02/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders, both dated 29.10.2024, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 49, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2021-22 and 2022-23 respectively. As a common ground in dispute is involved in both these appeals, therefore, same were heard together and consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 6990/Mum/2024 for assessment year 2021 under: 1. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) 49, Mumbai [Hereinafter referred as \"CIT(A)\"] erred in directing the AO to \"not to enforce the recovery of Rs. 1,64,81,206/ and earmark the said TDS liability as \"not recoverable\" from the appellant\" instead of directing the AO to allow the above credit to the Appellant resulting into income tax refund. The Appellant prays that the AO shall be directed to give credit for the TDS of Rs. 1,64,81,206/ deductor; however, not paid to the credit of Central Government. Therefore, grant refund to 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that banking financial corporation. T income electronically on 31.03.2022 declaring total income Rs.6,15,49,118/-. The processed and intimation u/s 143(1) of the short the Act) was issued on 13.11.2022 the tax deducted at source not granted is reproduced as Sl. No. Particulars 1. TDS credit pertaining to amalgamating company i.e. Lodha Ventures Holding Pvt. Ltd and appearing in Form 26AS of LVHPL 2. TDS credit appearing in Form 26AS of the Appellant company 3. TDS credit pertaining to Tomorrow Capital Enterprises Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 6990 therefore, same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 6990/Mum/2024 for assessment year 2021-22 are reproduced as The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) 49, Mumbai [Hereinafter referred as \"CIT(A)\"] erred in directing the AO to \"not to enforce the recovery of Rs. 1,64,81,206/- from the appellant and earmark the said TDS liability as \"not recoverable\" from the appellant\" instead of directing the AO to allow the above credit to the Appellant resulting into income tax refund. The Appellant prays that the AO shall be directed to give credit for the TDS of Rs. 1,64,81,206/- being deducted by the payer / deductor; however, not paid to the credit of Central Government. herefore, grant refund to the Appellant. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee is a non banking financial corporation. The assessee filed its return of income electronically on 31.03.2022 declaring total income . The return of income filed by the assessee was intimation u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax was issued on 13.11.2022, wherein certain credit for the tax deducted at source (TDS) was not granted. Detail of the TDS ted is reproduced as under: TDS credit pertaining to amalgamating company i.e. Lodha Ventures Holding Pvt. Ltd and appearing in Form 26AS of LVHPL TDS credit appearing in Form 26AS of the Appellant company TDS credit pertaining to amalgamating company ie Capital Enterprises Pvt. Ltd 2 ITA No. 6990 & 6989/MUM/2024 disposed off by way of this The grounds raised by the assessee in ITA No. 22 are reproduced as The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) 49, Mumbai [Hereinafter referred as \"CIT(A)\"] erred in directing the AO to \"not from the appellant and earmark the said TDS liability as \"not recoverable\" from the appellant\" instead of directing the AO to allow the above TDS credit to the Appellant resulting into income tax refund. The Appellant prays that the AO shall be directed to give credit being deducted by the payer / deductor; however, not paid to the credit of Central Government. the assessee is a non- he assessee filed its return of income electronically on 31.03.2022 declaring total income at return of income filed by the assessee was tax Act,1961( in wherein certain credit for was not granted. Detail of the TDS Amount (Rs.) TDS credit pertaining to amalgamating company i.e. Lodha Ventures Holding Pvt. Ltd and appearing in 95,02,267 61,28,853 amalgamating company ie 87,270 Lodha Ventures Holding Private Limited but the deductor has not deposited to the TDS to the credit of government 4. TDS credit not allowed to the Appellant as deductor has not deposited to 5. Entries unreconciled Total TDS credit not allowed to 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) granted credit for TDS of Rs.95,02,267/- at serial No. 1 serial No. 2. The credit for the remaining amount was not allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) observing as under: “8.2.3 The appellant has claimed the TDS credit of Rs. 6,48,984/ and Rs. 87,270/ the deductors had not paid the same to the credit of the Central Government. Appellant has further submitted that it has offered the corresponding income and, in its book & the return of income. Appellant has relied upon the CBDT Circular dated 01.06.2015 and 11.03.2016 Officers not to enforced demand created on account of mismatch of credit due to non treasury by the Deductor. The Appellant has relied upon number of judicial decisi of the decision Yashpal Sahni vs. ACIT (293 ITR 539) is reproduced as under \"24. As stated earlier, in the present case petitioner established that from his salary income, tax has been deducted at source by the employer revenue has to recover the said TDS amount with interest and penalty from the respondent No.6 alone and the revenue cannot seek to recover th view of the specific bar contained under section 205 of the Act. The fact that the petitioner is not entitled to the credit of the tax deducted at source for the non the respondent No.6, cannot be a ground to recover the amount of tax deducted at source from the petitioner. In other words, even if the credit of the TDS amount is not available to the petitioner assessee for want of TDS certificate, the fact that the tax has been deducted at source from salary income of the petitioner would be sufficient to hold that as per section 205 of the Act, the revenue Tomorrow Capital Enterprises Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 6990 Lodha Ventures Holding Private Limited but the deductor has not deposited to the TDS to the credit of TDS credit not allowed to the Appellant as deductor has not deposited to the TDS to the credit of government. Entries unreconciled Total TDS credit not allowed to the Appellant On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) granted credit for TDS of at serial No. 1 and TDS credit for Rs.61,28,853/ he credit for the remaining amount was not allowed by the Ld. CIT(A) observing as under: 8.2.3 The appellant has claimed the TDS credit of Rs. 6,48,984/ and Rs. 87,270/- which is not reflected in the form 26AS because deductors had not paid the same to the credit of the Central Government. Appellant has further submitted that it has offered the corresponding income and, in its book & the return of income. Appellant has relied upon the CBDT Circular dated 01.06.2015 11.03.2016 wherein CBDT has directed the Assessing Officers not to enforced demand created on account of mismatch of credit due to non-payment of TDS amount to the Government treasury by the Deductor. The Appellant has relied upon number of judicial decisions in support of its contentions. The operative part decision of Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Yashpal Sahni vs. ACIT (293 ITR 539) is reproduced as under \"24. As stated earlier, in the present case petitioner-assessee has d that from his salary income, tax has been deducted at source by the employer-respondent No.6 and, therefore, the revenue has to recover the said TDS amount with interest and penalty from the respondent No.6 alone and the revenue cannot seek to recover the said amount from the petitioner- view of the specific bar contained under section 205 of the Act. The fact that the petitioner is not entitled to the credit of the tax deducted at source for the non-issuance of the TDS certificate by ndent No.6, cannot be a ground to recover the amount of tax deducted at source from the petitioner. In other words, even if the credit of the TDS amount is not available to the petitioner assessee for want of TDS certificate, the fact that the tax has been deducted at source from salary income of the petitioner would be sufficient to hold that as per section 205 of the Act, the revenue Capital Enterprises Pvt. Ltd 3 ITA No. 6990 & 6989/MUM/2024 Lodha Ventures Holding Private Limited but the deductor has not deposited to the TDS to the credit of TDS credit not allowed to the Appellant as deductor has 6,48,984 1,13,828 1,64,81,202 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) granted credit for TDS of Rs.61,28,853/- at he credit for the remaining amount was not allowed 8.2.3 The appellant has claimed the TDS credit of Rs. 6,48,984/- which is not reflected in the form 26AS because deductors had not paid the same to the credit of the Central Government. Appellant has further submitted that it has offered the corresponding income and, in its book & the return of income. Appellant has relied upon the CBDT Circular dated 01.06.2015 wherein CBDT has directed the Assessing Officers not to enforced demand created on account of mismatch of payment of TDS amount to the Government treasury by the Deductor. The Appellant has relied upon number of ons in support of its contentions. The operative part Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Yashpal Sahni vs. ACIT (293 ITR 539) is reproduced as under- assessee has d that from his salary income, tax has been deducted at respondent No.6 and, therefore, the revenue has to recover the said TDS amount with interest and penalty from the respondent No.6 alone and the revenue cannot e said amount from the petitioner-assessee in view of the specific bar contained under section 205 of the Act. The fact that the petitioner is not entitled to the credit of the tax issuance of the TDS certificate by ndent No.6, cannot be a ground to recover the amount of tax deducted at source from the petitioner. In other words, even if the credit of the TDS amount is not available to the petitioner assessee for want of TDS certificate, the fact that the tax has been deducted at source from salary income of the petitioner would be sufficient to hold that as per section 205 of the Act, the revenue cannot recover the TDS amount with interest from the petitioner once again. 25. In the result, the petition succeeds. As th had deducted the petitioner the revenue with interest from the petitioner in view of the bar contained in section 205 of the Act. Accordingly, the revenu refund to the petitioner within 8 weeks from today the amount of Rs. 17,89,587/ the date of payment. Though the credit of the tax deducted at source is not available to the petitioner, not recoverable from the petitioner, the revenue is directed to earmark the said TDS liability as \"not recoverable\" from the petitioner\". In all the decisions relied upon by the appellant, Hon'ble Courts have cited the Section 2 is deductible at source under provisions of this Act, the assessee shall not the called upon to pay the tax by himself to the extent to which the tax has been deducted. 8.2.4 Considering the facts of the case and i pronouncements, Assessing Officer is directed to verify whether the tax has been deducted by the deductor and whether corresponding income has been offered by the appellant in its books of accounts. If so, then the AO is directed no recovery of Rs 7,36,254/ TDS liability as \"not recoverable\" from the appellant. 8.2.5 Appellant has not reconciled the remaining TDS entry of Rs. 1,13,828/- Therefore, no relief is granted on the sa 5. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Finance Ltd. in ITA No. 899/Mum/2018 for assessment year 2013 14 wherein the Tribunal has followed the Central Board of Taxes (CBDT) office memorandum dated finding of the Tribunal is reproduced as under: Tomorrow Capital Enterprises Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 6990 cannot recover the TDS amount with interest from the petitioner In the result, the petition succeeds. As the respondent No.6 had deducted the tax at source from the salary income of the petitioner the revenue could not have recovered the said amount with interest from the petitioner in view of the bar contained in section 205 of the Act. Accordingly, the revenue is from direct to refund to the petitioner within 8 weeks from today the amount of Rs. 17,89,587/- with interest @ 6% from the date of recovery till the date of payment. Though the credit of the tax deducted at source is not available to the petitioner, since the said liability is not recoverable from the petitioner, the revenue is directed to earmark the said TDS liability as \"not recoverable\" from the In all the decisions relied upon by the appellant, Hon'ble Courts have cited the Section 205 of the Act which states that where tax is deductible at source under provisions of this Act, the assessee shall not the called upon to pay the tax by himself to the extent to which the tax has been deducted. 8.2.4 Considering the facts of the case and in light of the judicial pronouncements, Assessing Officer is directed to verify whether the tax has been deducted by the deductor and whether corresponding income has been offered by the appellant in its books of accounts. If so, then the AO is directed not to enforce the recovery of Rs 7,36,254/- from the appellant and earmark the said TDS liability as \"not recoverable\" from the appellant. 8.2.5 Appellant has not reconciled the remaining TDS entry of Rs. Therefore, no relief is granted on the same. Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to decision ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Ltd. in ITA No. 899/Mum/2018 for assessment year 2013 14 wherein the Tribunal has followed the Central Board of office memorandum dated 11/03/2026. finding of the Tribunal is reproduced as under: Capital Enterprises Pvt. Ltd 4 ITA No. 6990 & 6989/MUM/2024 cannot recover the TDS amount with interest from the petitioner e respondent No.6 tax at source from the salary income of the recovered the said amount with interest from the petitioner in view of the bar contained in e is from direct to refund to the petitioner within 8 weeks from today the amount of with interest @ 6% from the date of recovery till the date of payment. Though the credit of the tax deducted at since the said liability is not recoverable from the petitioner, the revenue is directed to earmark the said TDS liability as \"not recoverable\" from the In all the decisions relied upon by the appellant, Hon'ble Courts 05 of the Act which states that where tax is deductible at source under provisions of this Act, the assessee shall not the called upon to pay the tax by himself to the extent to n light of the judicial pronouncements, Assessing Officer is directed to verify whether the tax has been deducted by the deductor and whether corresponding income has been offered by the appellant in its t to enforce the from the appellant and earmark the said 8.2.5 Appellant has not reconciled the remaining TDS entry of Rs. me.” Before us, the Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to decision ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s ECL Ltd. in ITA No. 899/Mum/2018 for assessment year 2013- 14 wherein the Tribunal has followed the Central Board of Direct 11/03/2026. The relevant “7.1 Further, reliance has been placed in the case of Executors of the Estate of S. Shanmuga Mudaliar vs. ACIT (supra). One of the substantial question of law before the Hon'ble High Court was: \"3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 205 of the Income Tax Act would apply and is the Appellant liable to pay tax to the extent to which tax has been deducted?\" The Hon'ble rendered in the case of Yashpal Sahni vs. Rekha Hajarnavis, ACIT (supra) and in ITR 206 (Kar) held that the provisions of section 205 of the Act bars the Department from demanding tax deducted at assessee who has already suffered deduction. Thus, the Hon'ble High Court answered substantial question in negative and in favour of assessee /appellant. In the light of decision referred above and the CBDT Circular (supra), we hold that the assessee be allowed benefit of TDS already deducted irrespective of the fact that the same has been deposited by the exchequer or not. This issue is restored back to the file of Officer only for the limited purpose of verification of the TDS amounts that have been deducted but not reflected in 26AS statement of 6. We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record Rs.6,48,984/- has only been disputed before us. case, the Ld. counsel has referred to the Paper Book page 25 and submitted that interest has been received from was deducted at source deposited into Government counsel submitted that the loan transactions with those parties already stands closed. We find that the Finance Ltd. (supra) Yashpal v. ACIT (supra) and memorandum(supra) Tomorrow Capital Enterprises Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 6990 7.1 Further, reliance has been placed in the case of Executors of the Estate of S. Shanmuga Mudaliar vs. ACIT (supra). One of the ntial question of law before the Hon'ble High Court was: \"3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 205 of the Income Tax Act would apply and is the Appellant liable to pay tax to the extent to which tax has been deducted?\" High Court after placing reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Yashpal Sahni vs. Rekha Hajarnavis, ACIT in the case of Ansuya Alva vs. DCIT, reported as 278 ITR 206 (Kar) held that the provisions of section 205 of the Act bars epartment from demanding tax deducted at source from the assessee who has already suffered deduction. Thus, the Hon'ble High Court answered substantial question in negative and in favour of assessee /appellant. In the light of decision referred above and he CBDT Circular (supra), we hold that the assessee be allowed benefit of TDS already deducted irrespective of the fact that the same has been deposited by the deductee to the Government exchequer or not. This issue is restored back to the file of Officer only for the limited purpose of verification of the TDS amounts that have been deducted but not reflected in 26AS the assessee.” We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused the relevant materials on record. The TDS credit of Rs.87,270/ has only been disputed before us. case, the Ld. counsel has referred to the Paper Book page 25 and interest has been received from four parties deducted at source by those parties but same Government account by those parties. The Ld. counsel submitted that the loan transactions with those parties already stands closed. We find that the Tribunal in the case ECL Finance Ltd. (supra) has considered the decision Yashpal v. ACIT (supra) and relied on the CBDT memorandum(supra). The ld CIT(A) has also directed the AO for not Capital Enterprises Pvt. Ltd 5 ITA No. 6990 & 6989/MUM/2024 7.1 Further, reliance has been placed in the case of Executors of the Estate of S. Shanmuga Mudaliar vs. ACIT (supra). One of the ntial question of law before the Hon'ble High Court was: \"3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, Section 205 of the Income Tax Act would apply and is the Appellant liable to pay tax to the extent to which tax has High Court after placing reliance on the decision rendered in the case of Yashpal Sahni vs. Rekha Hajarnavis, ACIT Ansuya Alva vs. DCIT, reported as 278 ITR 206 (Kar) held that the provisions of section 205 of the Act bars source from the assessee who has already suffered deduction. Thus, the Hon'ble High Court answered substantial question in negative and in favour of assessee /appellant. In the light of decision referred above and he CBDT Circular (supra), we hold that the assessee be allowed benefit of TDS already deducted irrespective of the fact that the deductee to the Government exchequer or not. This issue is restored back to the file of Assessing Officer only for the limited purpose of verification of the TDS amounts that have been deducted but not reflected in 26AS We have heard rival submissions of the parties and perused The TDS credit of Rs.87,270/- and has only been disputed before us. In the instant case, the Ld. counsel has referred to the Paper Book page 25 and four parties and tax but same has not been those parties. The Ld. counsel submitted that the loan transactions with those parties in the case ECL the decision in the case of on the CBDT office . The ld CIT(A) has also directed the AO for not doing any recovery in respect of the TDS amount. B application of the ratio necessary whether tax was deducted by the party making payment to the assessee. The Ld. counsel could not file any evidence in support thereof and requested to restore the matter to AO. Therefore, in the instant case it Officer whether the said four parties had not. Accordingly, we feel it appropriate to restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification of those parties from thei whether the tax deducted at source has been shown as liability them. The Assessing Officer after verification of the fact that the tax was deducted at source by those parties accordance with law. The sole ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. The ground raised in assessment year 2022 as under: 1. The AO erred in allowing the TDS credit of Rs. 96,95,296/ against the TDS credit of Rs 2,78,90,798/ Appellant in the return of income resulting into short TDS credit of Rs. 1,81,95,502/ The Appellant submits that the AO's action of not allowing the TDS credit is in gross violation of section 199 Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). The Appellant has rightly claimed the TDS credit of Rs. 2,78,90,798/ corresponding income has been offered for taxation during the year under consideration; hence, it shall be al credit of Rs. 2,78,90,798/ Tomorrow Capital Enterprises Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 6990 doing any recovery in respect of the TDS amount. B application of the ratio of the above decisions, whether tax was deducted by the party making payment assessee. The Ld. counsel could not file any evidence in support thereof and requested to restore the matter to AO. Therefore, in the instant case it needs verification by the Assessing hether the said four parties had deducted tax at source or not. Accordingly, we feel it appropriate to restore the matter back to the Assessing Officer for verification of deduction of tax at source those parties from their records including financial statements and whether the tax deducted at source has been shown as liability . The Assessing Officer after verification of the fact that the tax deducted at source by those parties, shall grant accordance with law. The sole ground of the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The ground raised in assessment year 2022-23 is reproduced 1. The AO erred in allowing the TDS credit of Rs. 96,95,296/ against the TDS credit of Rs 2,78,90,798/- claimed by the Appellant in the return of income resulting into short TDS credit of Rs. 1,81,95,502/-. The Appellant submits that the AO's action of not allowing the TDS credit is in gross violation of section 199 r.w.s 205 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). The Appellant has rightly claimed the TDS credit of Rs. 2,78,90,798/- in the return of income as the corresponding income has been offered for taxation during the year under consideration; hence, it shall be allowed the TDS credit of Rs. 2,78,90,798/- as claimed in return of income Capital Enterprises Pvt. Ltd 6 ITA No. 6990 & 6989/MUM/2024 doing any recovery in respect of the TDS amount. But for s, verification is whether tax was deducted by the party making payment assessee. The Ld. counsel could not file any evidence in support thereof and requested to restore the matter to AO. tion by the Assessing deducted tax at source or not. Accordingly, we feel it appropriate to restore the matter back to tax at source by r records including financial statements and whether the tax deducted at source has been shown as liability by . The Assessing Officer after verification of the fact that the tax , shall grant credit in accordance with law. The sole ground of the appeal of the assessee 23 is reproduced 1. The AO erred in allowing the TDS credit of Rs. 96,95,296/- as claimed by the Appellant in the return of income resulting into short TDS credit of The Appellant submits that the AO's action of not allowing the r.w.s 205 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). The Appellant has rightly claimed the in the return of income as the corresponding income has been offered for taxation during the lowed the TDS as claimed in return of income 2. The AO erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the 7.1 In view of identical issue in dispute involved also restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer the light of our directions given in assessment year 2021 grounds of appeal are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, both the appeal statistical purposes. Order pronounc Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 25/02/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// Tomorrow Capital Enterprises Pvt. Ltd ITA No. 6990 2. The AO erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and Act. In view of identical issue in dispute involved also restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer the light of our directions given in assessment year 2021 grounds of appeal are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/02/2025. Sd/- Sd/ (RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Capital Enterprises Pvt. Ltd 7 ITA No. 6990 & 6989/MUM/2024 2. The AO erred in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and In view of identical issue in dispute involved, this appeal is also restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding in the light of our directions given in assessment year 2021-22. The grounds of appeal are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. of the assessee are allowed for /02/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "