MADHAVAN KESAVAN HARIDAS,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(2)(1), MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL“J(SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5583/MUM/2026 (AY: 2018-19) (Physical Hearing) Madhavan Kesavan Haridas ITO, Ward – 2(2)(1), Mumbai 61/A Mittal Tower, Nariman Point, vs Room No. 126, 1st Floor, Kautilya Mumbai – 400021. Bhavan C-41 to C-43, G Block, [PAN: AKPPH4447R] Bandra (East), Mumbai – 400051. Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Fenil Bhatt, Advocate & Shri Kewal Shah, CA Revenue by Ms. Kanupriya Damor Sr. DR Date of Institution 07.05.2026 Date of hearing 27.08.2026 Date of pronouncement 07.09.2026 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) – 58 dated 22.04.2026 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: Ground I: ERRONEOUS DENIAL OF REFUND:  The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (“Learned. CIT(A)”) has erred in law and on facts in denying of refund of Rs.1,79,730/- being the said refund arising as a direct consequence of the completed assessment under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961("the Act") read with section 143(3) of the Act and not constituting a fresh or independent claim, whereas the reassessment was completed by accepting the returned income without any addition, thereby rendering the impugned action unsustainable.  The Appellant therefore prays that the Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly direct the Assessing Officer to grant the refund of Rs. 1,79,730/- along with applicable interest. Ground II: VIOLATION OF STATUTORY RIGHT UNDER SECTIONS 237 AND 240:  The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that Sections 237 and 240 of the Act mandate grant of refund where tax paid exceeds the assessed liability, and therefore, denial of refund is in direct contravention of the statutory provisions of the Act.

ITA No.5583/Mum/2026 (AY: 2018-19) Madhavan Kesavan Haridas  The Appellant therefore prays that the Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly hold that the Appellant is legally entitled to the refund under Sections 237 and 240 of the Act and direct the Revenue to grant such refund in accordance with law. Ground III: MISSAPPLICATION OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS:  The Learned CIT(A) has erred in placing reliance on judicial precedents relating to reassessment proceedings, without appreciating that such decisions do not apply to a case where reassessment is completed, income is accepted, and refund arises automatically as a statutory consequence.  The Appellant therefore prays that the Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly set aside the reliance placed on inapplicable judicial precedents and allow the refund claim as per the correct legal position. Ground IV: RETENTION OF TAX WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW  The Learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that retention of excess tax by the Revenue, despite determination of lower tax liability, is without authority of law, and contrary to settled legal principles governing taxation.  The Appellant therefore prays that the Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly hold that the retention of excess tax is illegal and direct the Revenue to refund the same forthwith along with applicable interest. Ground V: GENERAL GROUND  The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any of the above grounds at or before the time of hearing of this Appeal, with the permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal, in the interest of justice. 2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and the record perused. The learned Authorized Representative (Ld. AR) of the assessee submits that no return of income was filed by the assessee, as the assessee was not having taxable income. The case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information available in the system that the assessee has made certain financial transactions wherein TDS was deducted. Notice under section 148 was issued on 20-04-2022. In response to the notice under section 148, the assessee filed the return of income on 10-01-2023, declaring income of Rs. 2,69,327/-. The return was accepted without any variation. However, no credit of TDS was

ITA No.5583/Mum/2026 (AY: 2018-19) Madhavan Kesavan Haridas allowed to the assessee by the Assessing Officer by referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sun Engineering Works Private Limited, 198 ITR 297 (SC). The learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. The learned AR of the assessee submits that the ratio of the decision in CIT v. Sun Engineering Works Private Limited is based on different facts and is not applicable to the specific facts of the assessee. The assessee is not claiming any additional benefit, rather claimed credit of TDS only. Therefore, the assessee is eligible for credit of TDS in his account. 3. On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue submits that the assessee was a non-filer of the return of income. The return of income was filed only in response to the notice under section 148. The provisions of section 147 are for the benefit of the Revenue, and the assessee cannot take benefit thereof. 4. We have considered the rival submissions of both the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. We find that there is no dispute that the assessee filed the return of income in response to the notice under section 148 and claimed credit of TDS already available in the account of the assessee. The AO did not allow the credit by taking shelter of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sun Engineering Works Private Limited (supra). In our considered view that the ratio of the decision in Sun Engineering Works Private Limited (supra) is not applicable to the facts in hand. The restriction in Sun Engineering Works Private Limited (supra) is that in a reassessment proceeding, the assessee cannot raise fresh claims, seek a review of concluded items, or claim deductions/ allowances that were neither

ITA No.5583/Mum/2026 (AY: 2018-19) Madhavan Kesavan Haridas claimed nor allowed in the original assessment proceedings, unless they are directly related to the escaped income under inquiry. However, in the case in hand there was no assessment, rather the assessee is claiming only credit of TDS which is already in the account of assessee. Hence, we direct the AO to allow credit of TDS in the account of assessee. In the result, grounds of appeal of assessee are allowed. 5. In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed. 6. Order was pronounced in open court on 07/09/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH PAWAN SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, Dated: 07/09/2026 Biswajit Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. By Order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai