RIJU SRIVASTAVA,GURGAON vs. ITO, HARYANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3248/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 July 2026AY 2019-204 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that TDS amounts deducted and deposited by employers, reflecting in Form 26AS, should not have been refused. It also noted that income attributed to different company names appearing in bank statements and Form 26AS pertained to the same legal entity.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was reopened based on information about unoffered salary income. An addition of Rs. 6,72,503/- was made for salary income already offered, and a disallowance of Rs. 3,37,691/- was made for denied TDS credit despite it reflecting in Form 26AS.

What were the issues?

Whether TDS credit reflected in Form 26AS and duly deposited should be denied. Whether salary income appearing in bank statements and Form 26AS, pertaining to the same legal entity, was correctly treated as separate.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH‘SMC’: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Ms. Alisha Uppal, CA (VC)
Hearing: 14/05/2026Pronounced: 29/07/2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY,JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3248/Del/2026 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2019-20) Riju Srivastava, Income Tax Officer, J-95, Mayfield Gardens, Gurgaon, Sector-51, Vs. Haryana-122018. Gurgaon, Haryana-122018 PAN-BEVPS8693M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Alisha Uppal, CA (VC) Department by ShriManoj Kumar, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 14/05/2026 Date of Pronouncement 29/07/2026

ORDER The instant appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ld. CIT(A)] arising out of the assessment order dated 05.01.2024 passed under Section147 r.w.s.144read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department for Assessment Year 2019-20.

2.

Brief facts leading to this case is this that the assessee is an individual whose case was reopened by issuance of notice under Section

ITA No.3248/Del/2026 2 Riju Srivastava vs. ITO 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2025 based on the information available with

the Department in respect of receipt of salary income not offered to tax

the assessment whereof was completed on 05.01.2024 holding total

income of Rs.31,78,754/-. It is the case of the assessee that addition of

Rs.6,72,503/- made on account of same salary of income already offered

to tax and disallowance was made of Rs. 3,37,691/- on account of

denial of TDS though credit was reflecting in Form 26AS.

3.

Heard the parties perused the materials. It appears, that TDS

amounting to Rs.95,625/- deducted by Dentsu Marketing Solutions Pvt.

Ltd. and TDS amounting to Rs.2,42,066/- deducted by Group M Media

India Private Limited credit whereof has been refused though genuinely

reflecting in Form 26AS. The same has failed to be appreciated by the Ld.

CIT(A) that the tax were deduced at source and duly deposited. The same

was not considered while computing the alleged demand of

Rs.16,27,371/-.

4.

It is also a fact that Form 26AS was duly submitted in response to

the notices issued but without a result. Further fact reveals that income

attributed to Carat Media Services India Pvt. Ltd. appearing in the bank

statement and Dentsu Marketing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. reflecting in 26AS

pertains to one and the same legal entity. As per records of MCA, both

ITA No.3248/Del/2026 3 Riju Srivastava vs. ITO

names are associated with single CIN (U74300MH1996PTC104701). It

seems that since names are different in the bank statement and Form

26AS, even the same were documented before the Ld. CIT(A) including

Form 16 by employer, the Ld. CIT(A) considered the salary income

reflecting in the bank statements over and above salary reflecting in

26AS of Rs.10,33,260/- including the disputed amount of Rs.6,72,503/-

reflecting in the bank statement. Thus, having regard to the entire aspect

of the matter order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is found to be palpably bad.

The assessee is entitled to relief as claimed. Thus, the addition is

deleted.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 29.07.2026. Sd/- Sd/- S/dSd (MADHUMITA ROY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.07.2026 *PK/R.N, Sr. Ps* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI

ITA No.3248/Del/2026 4 Riju Srivastava vs. ITO

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →