What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the matter to the Jurisdictional AO with a direction to verify the additional evidence filed by the assessee regarding the TDS credit and allow it if the corresponding income was offered to tax.

The assessee claimed TDS credit in its return of income, but it was short-granted by the CPC. The assessee appealed, and the first appellate authority partly allowed the appeal. The current appeal concerns the disallowance of a specific TDS credit amount.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is entitled to TDS credit for an amount deducted but not deposited by the deductor, especially when additional evidence is filed at the appellate stage.

Deloitte Haskins & Sells… vs DCIT | s.143(1) | ITAT Ahmedabad 2026

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA

For Appellant: Shri Ninad Patade, AR

For Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, SR-DR

Hearing: 16.06.2026Pronounced: 04.08.2026

PER NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders of Addl/JCIT (Appeal)–1, Pune, [hereinafter referred to as “Addl. CIT(A)”] both dated 30.12.2024 for the Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2023-24 and 2024-25 respectively in the proceeding u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act [hereinafter referred as “the Act”]. As the issues involved in these two appeals were identical, both the matters were heard together and are being disposed of vide this common order for the sake of convenience.

There was delay of 11 days in filing of the two appeals. The assessee has filed a condonation application explaining the reason for

ITA No.540 & 541/Ahd/2025 Deloitte Haskins & Sells Chartered Accountants LLP Vs DCIT, AYs- 2023-24 & 2024-25 2 delay. It has been submitted that the assessee was in the process of collecting details of TDS, in respect of which the claim was dismissed by the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) and in the process there was this minor delay. Considering the explanation of the assessee, the delay in filing of the two appeals is condoned.

ITA No. 540/Ahd/2025: A.Y. 2023-24

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed its return of income for A.Y. 2023-24 on 30.10.2023 declaring total income of Rs.1,08,19,33,980/-, which was processed by the CPC accepting the returned income. However, the credit for TDS claimed by the assessee in the return of income, was short-granted to the extent of Rs. 1,49,81,922/- while processing the return. The assessee had claimed TDS credit of Rs.12,56,62,451/- in its return of income. The CPC, on the other hand, had allowed TDS credit of Rs.11,06,80,529/- only. As a result, demand of Rs. 1,77,17,720/- was raised vide the intimation u/s143(1) of the Act.

Aggrieved with the intimation and the demand raised by the CPC, the assessee had filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, which was decided by the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) vide the impugned order and the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed. Th

Now the assessee is in second appeal before us. The following grounds have been taken in this appeal:

The learned JCIT(A) erred on facts and in law holding that the credit of tax deducted at source ('TDS') amounting to Rs. 20,90,413 is not allowable to the appellant

ITA No.540 & 541/Ahd/2025 Deloitte Haskins & Sells Chartered Accountants LLP Vs DCIT, AYs- 2023-24 & 2024-25 3 2. The learned JCIT(A) erred in holding that appellant fails to substantiate that TDS of Rs. 20,90,413 was deducted by the payer and the relevant income was offered to tax in the FY 2022-23 (AY 2023-24) 3. The appellant submits that the learned JCIT(A) never requested the appellant to provide the aforesaid details. 4. The learned JCIT(A) ought to have directed AO to give credit of TDS to the extent of Rs. 20,90,413 as per law on providing the required details. 5. The learned JCIT(A) erred in not appreciating that at the time of filing of return of Income, the income corresponding to such TDS claimed was offered to tax, therefore appellant is entitled for the credit of the same

Shri Ninad Patade, the Ld. AR of the assessee explained that the assessee is engaged in the profession of practicing chartered accountants and is following cash system of accounting. The professional fees are offered to tax in the year of actual receipt and not on accrual basis and accordingly the corresponding TDS on professional fees is claimed in the year in which such fees are subjected to tax. As a result, there is a mismatch in the TDS as appearing in form 26AS and the TDS credit as claimed in the return. The Ld. AR explained that the CPC had disallowed credit for TDS mismatch of Rs. 1,49,81,922/-. Before the Ld. Addl. CIT(A), this mismatch was explained in the following manner.

i. TDS reflected in assessee’s own Form 26AS in earlier years but credit claimed in current year as income was offered on cash system in the current year: Rs. 15,07,781/- ii. TDS wrongly deducted in the PAN of sister entity but income offered by the assessee: Rs. 1,13,83,788/- iii. TDS deducted but not paid by the deductor:– Rs. 20,90,413/-.

ITA No.540 & 541/Ahd/2025 Deloitte Haskins & Sells Chartered Accountants LLP Vs DCIT, AYs- 2023-24 & 2024-25 4 The Ld. AR explained that on the first two issues, the Ld. Addl. CIT(A) had set aside the matter to the file of the AO for necessary verification and thereafter to allow credit to the assessee. However, the claim for credit in respect of TDS of Rs.20,93,413/- deducted but not deposited by the deductors was disallowed for the reason that no supporting evidence in the form of copy of invoice, ledger account etc. was brought on record. The Ld. AR explained that these documents were never called for by the Ld. Addl. CIT(A). He further, submitted that additional evidences in this respect has been filed in terms of Rule 18(4) of Appellate Tribunal Rules and the Ld. AR requested that these additional evidences in respect of TDS credit of Rs. 20,90,413/- may kindly be admitted and the matter may be set aside to the file of the AO with a direction to verify the same and, thereafter, allow credit to the assessee.

Per Contra, Shri Rameshwar P Meena, the Ld. Sr.-DR had no objection in setting aside the matter to the file of the AO with a direction to verify to additional evidences filed by the assessee and thereafter decide the matter as per law.

We have considered the submissions of the assessee. All the grounds taken by the assessee pertain to disallowance of TDS credit of Rs. 20,90,413/-. According to the assessee, the TDS of Rs. 20,90,413/- was deducted by the payers and the relevant income was offered to tax in the current year. The assessee had filed a summary of TDS credit of Rs. 20,90,410/- not allowed by CPC and also not considered by the Ld. Addl. CIT(A), which is as under:

ITA No.540 & 541/Ahd/2025 Deloitte Haskins & Sells Chartered Accountants LLP Vs DCIT, AYs- 2023-24 & 2024-25 5

The assessee has also filed supporting evidences in the form of extract of Form 26AS for different years, copy of confirmations, copy of invoice, payment invoice, bank statement etc. In the interest of justice, we deem it proper to set aside the matter to the file of Jurisdictional AO with a direction to verify the evidences brought on record in respect of TDS credit of Rs. 20,90,413/- and thereafter allow credit for the same, if the corresponding income is offered to tax in the current year. The assessee will be free to produce the additional evidences filed before us, with the AO and also any other evidence/clarifications as required by him.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

ITA No. 541/Ahd/2025: A.Y. 2024-25

10.

The issues involved in this year is identical to ITA No. 540/Ahd/2025 for A.Y. 2023-24. The Ld. Addl. CIT(A) did not allow TDS credit of Rs. 7,36,083/-, as the supporting evidences in this regard were not filed before him. The assessee has furnished the details in this respect and also

ITA No.540 & 541/Ahd/2025 Deloitte Haskins & Sells Chartered Accountants LLP Vs DCIT, AYs- 2023-24 & 2024-25 6

brought on record the additional evidences. The decision taken in ITA No. 540/Ahd/2025 for A.Y. 2023-24, is applicable mutatis mutandis to this year as well. Accordingly, the matter is set aside to the file of the Jurisdictional AO, with a direction to verify the claim of the assessee and thereafter allow credit of the TDS as per law.

11.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

12.

In the final result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the Court on 04/08/2026 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (SANJAY GARG) (NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated – 04th August, 2026 (True Copy) Neelesh, Sr. PS आदेश क� आदेश क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेश आदेश क� क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण / DR, ITAT, 6. गाड� फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) उप/सहायक उप सहायक पंजीकार उप उप सहायक सहायक पंजीकार पंजीकार आयकर आयकर अपीलीय आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद अिधकरण अहमदाबाद अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad अहमदाबाद

DELOITTE HASKINS & SELLS CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS LLP,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. CIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments