SANJAY RAMCHANDRA GAWANDE,NASHIK vs. ACIT CIRCLE 1 NASHIK, NASHIK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1837/PUN/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 July 2026AY 2015-20165 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the mistake in entering the deductor's name was not an 'apparent mistake' as per Section 154, requiring elaborate verification of documents. Therefore, the rejection of the rectification application by the CPC and confirmation by the CIT(A) were upheld.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed TDS credit in their return of income for AY 2015-16. Due to a clerical error, the name of the deductor was incorrectly mentioned, leading to a mismatch and restriction of TDS credit during processing under section 143(1). A rectification application was rejected by the CPC and confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether a clerical error in mentioning the deductor's name in the return of income constitutes an 'apparent mistake' for rectification under Section 154, and if TDS credit can be allowed based on documents filed subsequently.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE

Before: SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE & SHRI Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Appellant: Shri Amol Sawarkar
For Respondent: Shri Ambarnath Khule, JCIT

PER Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, A.M : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Bengaluru [Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)], passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) for AY 2015-16 on 23.02.2026.

2.

Submission of Ld. AR: The Ld. AR filed a paper book containing 120 pages including decisions of the Hon’ble High Court and the ITAT. The Ld. AR admitted that there was a mistake by the assessee in typing the name of the deductor in the return of income. The facts mentioned by the assessee are as under : “1. The appellant is an individual engaged in the business of civil construction contracting. 2. The appellant filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16 on 31.10.2015 declaring turnover of Rs.7,41,98,149 and total income of Rs.48,87,650 and claiming credit of TDS amounting to Rs.14,27,420.

ITA No. 1837/PUN/2026

3.

The return was processed under section 143(1) wherein the returned income was accepted. However, TDS credit was restricted to Rs.3,87,988 and TDS amounting to Rs.10,39,432 was not granted. 4. The appellant had raised bills aggregating to Rs.4,51,92,674 in respect of contractual work executed in the name of Municipal Council, Kamtee, Nagpur TAN NGPM02853E. Out of this: o Rs.3,99,35,548 was received subsequently and TDS of Rs.6,84,310 was deducted. o Rs.52,57,126 pertained to balance income on which TDS of Rs.3,55,122 was deducted but not deposited by the deductor. 5. The entire income of Rs.4,51,92,674 was duly accounted for and offered to tax in Financial Year 2014-15 relevant to Assessment Year 2015-16. 6. The TDS of Rs.6,84,310 deducted under TAN NGPM02853E (Municipal Council, Kamtee, Nagpur) is reflected in Form 26AS for Assessment Year 2016-17 since the payment and deduction occurred in Financial Year 2015- 16. However, the corresponding income had already been assessed in Assessment Year 2015-16. 7. The TDS of Rs.3,55,122 was deducted from the appellant's income but was not deposited by the deductor and therefore does not appear in Form 26AS. 8. While filing the return of income for Assessment Year 2015-16, the appellant correctly mentioned TAN NGPM02853E. However, due to an inadvertent clerical error, the name of the deductor was mentioned as "SMC Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd." instead of "Municipal Council, Kamtee, Nagpur." 9. The appellant filed an application under section 154 seeking rectification and grant of TDS credit of Rs.10,39,432. The CPC rejected the rectification application.”

2.1 The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is entitled for tax credit.

3.

Submission of Ld. DR:

The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee in the return of income had incorrectly mentioned name of the deductor, therefore, there was mismatch and accordingly in the order u/s 143(1) of the Act which was computer generated the TDS was not allowed. The assessee filed rectification application with the Centralized Processing Center against the order u/s 143(1) of the Act which was rejected as there was no apparent

ITA No. 1837/PUN/2026

mistake in the order u/s 143(1) of the Act. The Ld. DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer (AO) and the Ld. CIT(A) and requested to dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

Findings and analysis:

We have heard both the parties and perused the record. In this case, the assessee had filed return of income for AY 2015-16 on 31.10.2015. The due date for filing return of income for AY 2015-16 was 31.10.2015. The return of income of the assessee was processed by the Centralized Processing Center and order u/s 143(1) of the Act was passed on 29.07.2016. The Centralized Processing Center has restricted the assessee’s claim for TDS to Rs.3,87,988/- instead of Rs.14,27,420/-. The relevant part of the order u/s 143(1) of the Act which is at page Nos. 59 to 70 of the paper book is scanned and reproduced as under :

ITA No. 1837/PUN/2026

4.1 The assessee filed rectification application before the Centralized Processing Center against the order u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 29.07.2016. The Centralized Processing Center rejected assessee’s application. Aggrieved by the rectification order passed by the Centralized Processing Center, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the rectification order.

4.2 In this case, admittedly, the assessee had entered incorrect name in the Income Tax return while claiming tax deducted at source. The Centralized Processing Center processed Income Tax Return with the help of computer and there is no manual intervention and after that order u/s 143(1) of the Act is passed. Since, the assessee himself has entered incorrect details, there was mismatch and accordingly the Centralized Processing Center has restricted TDS credit of the assessee to Rs.3,87,988/-. The assessee filed rectification application before the Centralized Processing Center. In this case, admittedly, there was a mistake in data entered by the assessee in the return of income. Therefore, it is not an apparent mistake for the Centralized Processing Center to correct it. It is outside purview of section 154 of the Act as an elaborate verification of TDS documents is required before allowing any claim of excess TDS to the assessee. Therefore, this is outside the purview of section 154 of the Act. Hence, the Centralized Processing Center had rightly rejected the assessee’s claim of rectification and the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly confirmed the order u/s 154 of the Act.

4.3 The Ld. AR filed paper book which contains Working of TDS claimed at page No. 33, Running Bills issued by the Municipal Council, Kamtee at page Nos. 34 to 58, Copy of Form 26AS at page Nos.26 to 29 of the paper book. The Ld. AR submitted that as per R A Bill issued by the Municipal Council, TDS has been deducted. However, verification of all these documents which has been filed in the paper book is outside the purview of section 154 of the Act and these documents itself explains that there was no mistake apparent from record as far as order u/s 143(1) of the Act is concerned. In these facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the assessee. Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

ITA No. 1837/PUN/2026

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 10th July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (Dr. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

पुणे/Pune; दिन ांक/Dated : 10-07-2026 Ravi Kumar Digitally signed by Ravi Kumar Ravi Kumar Date: 2026.07.10 12:20:48 +05'30' आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent 3. The concerned Pr. CIT, Pune 4. DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Pune 5. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →