UMIYA TEX,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD-1, BARDOLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1326/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat10 July 2026AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Regarding the refund issue raised in the additional ground, the Tribunal set aside the matter to the AO to verify and grant the refund if legally admissible.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in textile manufacturing and job work, filed its return of income. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed a discrepancy between the claimed TDS and Form 26AS, leading to an addition of undisclosed income. The CIT(A) confirmed these additions.

What were the issues?

The primary issues involved a discrepancy in TDS claims and the assessee's eligibility for a refund of TDS credit which was allegedly already included in the turnover.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: Shri T.R. Sentil Kumar & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT (PHYSICAL HEARING) Before: Shri T.R. Sentil Kumar, Judicial Member And Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Accountant Member

ITA No: 1326/SRT/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16

M/s Umiya Tex Income Tax Officer 110, Plot No. A to F Ward-1, GM Plastic Gali Village, Vs Bardoli Palod, Tal. Mangrol, Surat-394110, Gujarat PAN: AAXFM0680R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri P M Jagasheth, CA Revenue Represented: Shri Mukesh Jain, CIT-DR Date of hearing : 04-05-2026 Date of pronouncement : 10-07-2026 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the appellate order dated 11.08.2025 passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur arising out of the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2015-16.

I.T. A No. 1326//SRT/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 2 Umiya Tex vs. ITO

2.

The registry has noted that the delay of 32 days filing of above appeal. The assesse by way of notarize affidavit explained that the assessee is not aware of the online income tax proceedings and not regularly accessing to e-mail account which is resulted in delay of 32 days in filing. Therefore requested to condone the delay. We are satisfied with the above explanation and the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

3.

Brief facts of the case are, the assessee is a firm in engaged in the business of manufacturing and job work of dying and trading of textile yarn. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 on 29.09.2015 declaring total income of Rs.4,62,110/-. The return was taken for scrutiny assessment, during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed that there is a difference of Rs. 71,904/- between TDS claimed in the return of income of Rs. 4,92,613/- and TDS as reflecting in Form 26AS of Rs. 5,64,517/-. The assessee filed ledger confirmation from the job workers and the claim of TDS as follows:-

I.T. A No. 1326//SRT/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 3 Umiya Tex vs. ITO

3.1. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the above reply and made addition of Rs. 56,29,374/- as net undisclosed income and demand tax thereon.

4.

Aggrieved against the re-assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) who has also confirmed the additions on the ground that the assessee has not filed revised return after TDS is made by the job workers. Thus, dismissing the appeal of the assessee.

5.

Aggrieved against the appellate order, the assessee is in appeal before us, raising the following grounds of appeal as under:-

1.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in issuing the order without giving proper opportunity of being heard.re- opening the assessment u/s.147 of the Act and issuing notice u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in assuming that Job work income on amount of non-claimed TDS is not included in Turnover for the relevant assessment year. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in considering the difference in amount of non-claimed TDS as per Income Tax Return and Form 26AS as 1,12,588/- instead of Rs. 71,904/- 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition Rs. 56,29,374/- as Job work income on which TDS amount of Rs. 1,12,588/- was deducted even though that full amount was included in Job Work income of assessee during the relevant assessment year, leading to taxing the same amount twice. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in not considering the submission of Job work invoice issued by the assessee and accepted by the said parities as amount included in the Turnover.

I.T. A No. 1326//SRT/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 4 Umiya Tex vs. ITO

6.

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in not considering the bank transactions of the assessee between the said parties. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as the law on the subject, the learned Assessing Officer has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s.271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 8. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper. 9. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.

5.1 The assessee also raised additional ground of appeal as under:- 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in not granting the eligible refund of ₹1,12,588/-, despite the corresponding TDS credit being duly reflected in Form 26AS and the related job work receipts from Sumangal Fibers Pvt. Ltd. amounting to ₹55,75,643/- and from Shree Sai Rang Filaments amounting to ₹53,731/- having already been included in the turnover declared in the Return of Income.

6.

Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee submitted before us, a paper book which contains the written submissions filed before ld. CIT(A), Ledger account of job workers, ledger sundry creditors, party wise ledger account of job work income and 26AS for A.Y 2015-16 and various case laws.

6.1 Further, Ld. Counsel in support of its additional ground submitted that the job work amount is already offered in the turnover declared by the assessee in its return of income. Thus, the assessee is eligible for refund of Rs.1,12,588/- which was not given by the Assessing Officer.

7.

Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR could not dispute the above submissions of the assessee. Thus, in the interest of justice, we deem it fit to set

I.T. A No. 1326//SRT/2025 A.Y. 2015-16 Page No 5 Umiya Tex vs. ITO

aside this issue to the file of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to verify the same and grant refund, if it is well within the provisions of law with applicable interest. Thus, the Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order is pronounced under provision of Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 10-07-2026 Sd/- Sd/- (RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat: Dated 10/07/2026 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →