LATE RUSSI DINSHAW BAHADURJI BY HIS LEGAL HEIR,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -19(3) (1), MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had remanded the issue back to the AO for verification of TDS credit. The Tribunal directed the AO to grant the TDS credit within 90 days.
What were the facts?
The assessee, as the executor of a deceased person, filed a return of income and claimed TDS credit. The CPC/AO denied this credit, leading to a demand. The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify Form 26AS and grant credit.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the denial of TDS credit to the assessee. The dispute revolved around the proper claiming and verification of TDS credit in the context of trust income and its reversion.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM
O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M:
This appeal has been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2022-23.
The assessee has challenged the grounds of denying TDS credit to the extent of Rs.1,77,780/-.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the appellant being the executor filed the return of income of the assessee (deceased) on 26.07.2022, declaring total income at (A.Y. 2022-23) Late Russi Dinshaw Bahadurji by his legal heir vs. ITO Rs.1,19,68,096/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act and the CPC /ld.
Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) raised a demand of Rs.1,77,780/- which is due to short grant of TDS credit.
Aggrieved the assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who directed the A.O. to verify Form 26AS and to give credit of the prepaid taxes after verification of 26AS.
The assessee is in appeal before us, challenging the order of the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. It is observed that the assessee was the Trustee and the settler of the ‘Deed of settlement of K D Bahadurji’ and on the demise of his brother Shri K. D. Bahadurji, the original life tenant, his wife Smt. Biku Bahadurji became the life tenant and upon her demise, the trust reverted back to the assessee. The entire income of ‘Deed of settlement of K D Bahadurji’ amounting to Rs.17,77,840/- was offered to tax in the hands of the assessee and the corresponding TDS credit of Rs.1,77,780/- was claimed by the assessee in his return of income as per the provisions of section 199 of the Act. The assessee contended that he had declared Nil return for the Trust dated 26.07.2022 for the reason that there was a specific provision in the Form for transfer of TDS and that in the form it was declared that TDS credit was transferred to the assessee along with the PAN number. The assessee further contended that the assessee had made all the disclosures with respect to TDS pertaining to the assessee as well as the ‘Deed of settlement of K D Bahadurji’. The CPC/Assessing Officer ('A.O.' for short) had denied the short granting TDS credit on the (A.Y. 2022-23) Late Russi Dinshaw Bahadurji by his legal heir vs. ITO above circumstances which the assessee was entitled to as per section 199 read with Rule 37BA of the I. T. Rules.
The first appellate authority has directed the ld. A.O. to verify Form 26AS filed by the assessee and thereby give credit of the prepaid taxes subject to verification of the same. We find that the ld. CIT(A) has given relief to the assessee by remanding the issue back to the A.O. for the reason that the ld. CIT(A) does not have access to the assessee’s Form 26AS and has rather directed the A.O. to give credit after due verification. We, therefore, direct the A.O. to give TDS credit for the year under consideration within 90 days from the date of this order.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 02.06.2023.
More judgments on Section 199
- M/S. Harsha Engineers International Ltd… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 1357/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- M/S. Harsha Engineers International Ltd… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 1357/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Hiteshkumar Mohanlal Desai, Daman vs The Assessment Unit, ITO, Daman Ward, DamanITA 962/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Highrise Slipform Infra Private Limited… vs Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 1267/PUN/2026[AY 2024-25]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026
- Hiteshkumar Mohanlal Desai, Daman vs The Assessment Unit, ITO, Daman Ward, DamanITA 962/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Of State Tax vs. Kaushlendra KumarPatna · 27 Oct 2026
- Ayush Sureshchandra Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- Sureshchandra Moolchand Shah vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 27 Oct 2026
- M/S Larsen And Toubro Limited vs. Joint Commissioner Of Central GST And Anr.Delhi · 27 Oct 2026
- T C Global INDIA Private Limited vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central GST, North DelhiDelhi · 27 Oct 2026