VIJAY GAJANAN WANI,THANE V. ITO 3(4), THANE

ITA 634/MUM/2026

AI Insights

The case involves Vijay Gajanan Wani, an employee of Siemens Limited, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirming the ex-parte assessment order passed by the AO under sections 147, 144, and 144B of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The main issues in the appeal included the denial of credit for TDS, the non-acceptance of a valid e-verified return, disallowance of deduction under section 80C, and additions made towards alleged fictitious exemptions and income from other sources. The Tribunal found that the return filed in response to the notice under section 148 was not properly examined by the lower authorities and required a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847526 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Mumbai
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 23-01-2026
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PANKAJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: POONAM NARAM
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; TDS; FORM 26AS
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 80C

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No. 634/Mum/2026 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Vijay Gajanan Wani 2402, Runwal Pearl Tower E Dhokali Naka Thane - 400607 [PAN: AAJPW5614M] Vs. ITO – 3(4), Thane (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Poonam Naram, C.A. Revenue by Shri Pankaj Kumar, CIT DR Date of Hearing 09.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement 26.03.2026 ORDER Per Smt. Beena Pillai, JM: Present appeal filed by assessee arises out of the order dated 27/11/2025 passed by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A)”] for Assessment Year 2017-18, on the following grounds:- “1. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), FAC, has erred in law and on facts in confirming the ex-parte assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act without properly appreciating the facts, submissions and evidences placed on record. 2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming denial of credit for TDS amounting to INR 1,01,251/-, despite the same being reflected in Form 26AS and Form 16 even though when the income assessed by the Ld. AO is upheld. 3. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming that no valid e verified return was filed in response to notice u/s 148 and in disregarding the return and computation submitted by the appellant. Printed from counselvise.com 2 I.T.A. No. 634/Mum/2026 4. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance of deduction u/s 80C amounting to INR 49,500/- without granting proper opportunity and in violation of principles of natural justice. 5. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of IN 2,34,000/- towards alleged fictitious exemption without considering the return filed by the appellant u/s 148 of the Act where the said exemption was suo moto withdrawn by the appellant. 6. The Hon'ble CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of INR 50,210/- as income from other sources, resulting in double taxation of income already assessed under the head 'Salaries'. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing.” 2. The assessee is an employee with Siemens Limited and filed his return of income on 04/10/2017 declaring income of Rs.6,09,744/- claiming refund of Rs.52,900/- after claiming deduction of Rs.1,63,864/- under Chapter VI-A along with exemption of Rs.2,34,000/- and other allowances. The Ld.AO, upon verification through e-TDS database, found that the total amount paid/credited to assessee during the year was Rs.11,14,721/-. 2.1. The Ld. AO issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 28/03/2021, along with notice under section 142(1), calling upon the assessee to furnish details in respect of deduction claimed amounting to Rs.1,63,864/- and exemption claimed amounting to Rs.2,34,000/-. The Ld.AO noted that the assessee failed to furnish any evidence in support of the exemption claimed at Rs.2,34,000/- and had, in fact, accepted that the said claim was not substantiated. 2.2. Thereafter, the assessee, while filing the return of income in response to notice issued under section 148, recomputed the income Printed from counselvise.com 3 I.T.A. No. 634/Mum/2026 by withdrawing the excess exemption claimed. However, the Ld.AO again issued notice dated 23/02/2022 calling upon the assessee to substantiate the exemption claim. In the draft assessment order, an addition to that extent was proposed on account of non-furnishing of details. The Ld.AO, after considering the submissions of the assessee, ultimately disallowed a sum of Rs.2,34,000/-. 2.3. The Ld.AO further observed that the assessee had claimed deduction under section 80C amounting to Rs.49,000/-, but failed to furnish supporting documentary evidence. Accordingly, the said claim was disallowed for want of substantiation. 2.4. The Ld.AO also noted that the assessee had reported income from other sources at Rs.18,599/- in the return of income, whereas as per Form 16, the same was reflected at Rs.68,809/-, resulting in a difference of Rs.50,210/-. Since the assessee failed to reconcile the said difference, the Ld.AO made an addition of Rs.50,210/- to the income of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 3. Before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee contended that the return of income filed in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act was not properly considered by the Ld.AO. It was submitted that the excess claim of deduction as well as the TDS claim had already been withdrawn by the assessee in the return filed in response to the said notice. The assessee further submitted that, although the Ld.AO Printed from counselvise.com 4 I.T.A. No. 634/Mum/2026 had taken cognizance of the return filed under section 148, he failed to verify the revised claims therein and proceeded to disallow amounts which had already been withdrawn by the assessee. 3.1. It was further contended that the Ld.CIT(A), without examining or verifying the aforesaid factual position, simply upheld the disallowances made by the Ld.AO. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessment order passed by the Ld.AO was ex parte in nature and that no adequate opportunity was granted to the assessee to explain the claims which were stated to have been wrongly made by the earlier representative. The Ld.AR further submitted that the amount of Rs.2,34,000/-, being the excess claim, had already been withdrawn by the assessee in the return of income filed in response to notice issued under section 148 of the Act. However, it is submitted that the Ld.AO proceeded to make further disallowance of the same amount while passing the reassessment order. 4.1. The Ld.AR also submitted that the interest income, which was erroneously offered to tax at Rs.18,599/- by the erstwhile consultant, was subsequently corrected to Rs.68,809/-. In this regard, he drew our attention to page 34 of the paper book to substantiate the correct disclosure. He further submitted that the amounts pertaining to Printed from counselvise.com 5 I.T.A. No. 634/Mum/2026 tuition fees claimed as deduction under section 80C were also duly reflected in the records. 4.2. In respect of the TDS credit, the Ld. AR submitted that the same is duly verifiable from the TDS certificates placed at pages 18 to 24 of the paper book. 4.3. Per contra, the Ld.DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below and reiterated the submissions advanced before them. 5. It is observed that the return of income filed by the assessee in response to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, along with the revised computation, has not been properly examined by the authorities below. At the same time, it is noted that the said return has been taken into account for the purposes of determining the income of the assessee. It further emerges that the disallowances made by the Ld.AO, including those relating to exemption, deduction under section 80C, and reconciliation of income, require verification in the light of the evidences now placed on record. 5.1. In these circumstances, and in the interest of justice, we deem it appropriate to restore the entire issue to the file of the Ld.AO for fresh examination. The assessee is directed to furnish all relevant evidences in support of its claims, and the Ld.AO shall verify the same and adjudicate the issue afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. Printed from counselvise.com 6 I.T.A. No. 634/Mum/2026 Accordingly, grounds raised by assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 26/03/2026 Sd/- Sd/- (BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Mumbai Dated: 26/03/2026 SC Sr. P.S. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Printed from counselvise.com "