TCS E-SERVE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ODS TDS CIRCLE 2(3) MUMBAI, MUMBAI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH; MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2578/Mum/2026 (Assessment Year: 2025-26)

TCS E-Serve International ODS TDS Circle 2(3), Mumbai Limited 3rd Floor, MTNL Building, 9th Floor, Nirmal Building, vs. Cumballa Hill, Peddar Road, Nariman Point, Mumbai, Mumbai, Maharashtra, 400026. Maharashtra, 400021. PAN: AADCC1577A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Ketan Ved For Revenue : Shri Ashok Charan, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 24.07.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 31.07.2026 O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M :

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Learned Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Mumbai [‘Ld. CCIT(TDS)’], dated 08.01.2026, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2025- 26, wherein the Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) (hereinafter referred as ‘Ld. CCIT’) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the Appellant’s application for waiver of interest under section 201(1A)(ii), despite the case being fully covered by CBDT Circular No. 5/2025 dated 28.03.2025. 2. The Ld. CCIT failed to appreciate that the Appellant had initiated payment of TDS on the due date, and the delay occurred solely due to technical failure at the Government portal/banking interface, which was beyond the control of the Appellant.

ITA No. 2578//Mum/2026; A.Y. 2025-26 TCS E-Serve International Limited 3. The Ld. CCIT erred in adopting a hyper-technical interpretation of the term “debit” and ignored the substance of the transaction, thereby defeating the very object of the beneficial circular issued under section 119 of the Act. 4. The Ld. CCIT failed to consider relevant evidence on record, including bank statements, failed challans and grievance acknowledgements, which clearly established that there was no negligence or mala fide intention on the part of the Appellant. 5. The Ld. CCIT erred in shifting an unwarranted burden on the Appellant by holding that the payment ought to have been re-attempted again on the same day, a requirement not prescribed under law or under the CBDT Circular. 6. The Ld. CCIT failed to appreciate that interest under section 201(1A) is compensatory and not penal, and where there is no loss to the Revenue, denial of waiver is unjustified.” 2. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee has moved an application before the ld. CCIT(TDS), requesting for waiver of interest amounting to Rs. 1,89,810/- for A.Y. 2024-25 u/s. 201(1A)(iii) /206C(7) on account of late payment of Tax Deducted at Source in terms of Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) Circular No. 5/2025 dated 28/03/2025, wherein the Board in exercise of its powers u/s. 119 of the Act has directed the ld. CCIT to consider such applications seeking reduction or waiver of interest u/s. 201(1A)(iii)/206C(7) of the Act. It was submitted that the assessee’s application has since been rejected by the ld. CCIT(TDS) vide his order dated 08.01.2026 and against such rejection and order of the ld CCIT(TDS), the assessee has moved the present appeal.

ITA No. 2578//Mum/2026; A.Y. 2025-26 TCS E-Serve International Limited (a) …………………… (aa) …………………… (b) …………………… (ba) …………………… (c) an order passed by,— (i) a Principal Commissioner or Commissioner under section 12AA or section 12AB or under clause (vi) of sub-section (5) of section 80G or under section 263 or under section 270A or under section 271 or under section 272A or an order passed by him under section 154 amending any such order; or (ii) a Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or a Principal Director General or Director General or a Principal Director or Director under section 263 or under section 272A or an order passed by him under section 154 amending any such order; or 4. In light of the aforesaid provisions of Section 253(1)(c) of the Act, we find that such an order is not an appealable order before this Tribunal and the appropriate remedy lies before the appropriate Court of law which the assesse may wish to avail as so advised. The impugned appeal is thus dismissed as not maintainable before this Tribunal.

Order pronounced on 31.07.2026

Sd/- Sd/- SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

Mumbai, Dated: 31.07.2026 Karishma J. Pawar, SR. PS

Copy to : 1) The Appellant 2) The Respondent 3) The CIT concerned 4) The D.R, ITAT, Mumbai

ITA No. 2578//Mum/2026; A.Y. 2025-26 TCS E-Serve International Limited 5) Guard file By Order

Dy./Asst. Registrar I.T.A.T, Mumbai