ASHOKA DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -1(1), HYDERABAD

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad �ी रिवश सूद,�ाियक सद� एवं �ी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद� सम� | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No. 416/Hyd/2026 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2023-24) M/s. Ashoka Developers & Vs. Assistant Commissioner Builders Ltd, of Income Tax Hyderabad Central Circle 1(1) PAN: Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: CA C. Maheshwar Reddy राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Shri Mohan Babu, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 01/07/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 08/07/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by M/s. Ashoka Developers & Builders Ltd (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 11, Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 03.01.2026 for the A.Y. 2023-24. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

claiming total TDS credit of ₹67,37,722/-. The return of income of the assessee was processed by the Central Processing Centre (“CPC”) under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) on 09.01.2024, wherein TDS credit of only ₹36,18,694/- was allowed against the total claim of ₹67,37,722/-. Thus, TDS credit amounting to ₹31,19,028/- was not allowed by the CPC. 4. Aggrieved by the intimation issued by the CPC under section 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed an application for rectification under section 154 of the Act before CPC. The said rectification application was rejected by CPC vide order under section 154 of the Act dated 08.04.2024. 5. Aggrieved by the rectification order of the CPC, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee, upheld the action of CPC and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the solitary issue arising from the grounds of appeal of the assessee relates to the denial of TDS credit amounting to ₹31,19,028/-. Inviting our attention to Serial No. 39 of the rectification order of the CPC, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had claimed total TDS credit of ₹67,37,722/- whereas CPC allowed only ₹36,18,694/-. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is engaged in the business of construction of houses, flats, commercial complexes and execution of civil works and is following the percentage completion method of accounting. It was submitted that in all the preceding assessment years,

i.e., Assessment Years 2016-17 to 2022-23, and also in Assessment Year 2024-25, CPC has allowed the TDS credit as claimed by the assessee in the return of income. Therefore, following the principle of consistency, the TDS credit denied during the year under consideration should also be allowed. The Ld. AR further submitted that the claim of TDS credit is duly supported by Form 26AS and therefore the balance credit of ₹31,19,028/- deserves to be allowed. 7. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) strongly relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. The Ld. DR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A), in para nos. 6.3.1 to 6.3.11 of the impugned order, has elaborately discussed the provisions of section 199 of the Act and Rule 37BA of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (“the Rules”) and thereafter rightly upheld the action of CPC. It was submitted that the assessee failed to reconcile the TDS claimed with the income offered to tax during the relevant assessment year. Therefore, the denial of TDS credit by CPC and its confirmation by the Ld. CIT(A) is fully justified. Accordingly, the Ld. DR prayed before the Bench to upheld the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The solitary dispute involved in the present appeal relates to the denial of TDS credit amounting to ₹31,19,028/-. In this regard, we have gone through para nos. 6.3.1 to 6.3.11 of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), which is to the following effect:

and the income recognized during the year assumes significance. We find that the assessee has not furnished the requisite reconciliation demonstrating that the income corresponding to the disputed TDS credit has been offered to tax during the year under consideration. Accordingly, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in denying the TDS credit to the assessee in the absence of a proper reconciliation statement between the TDS claimed and the income offered to tax. 9.1 As regards the contention of the assessee based on the principle of consistency, we are unable to accept the same. As far as the present issue is concerned, the same is depend on the verification of facts of the respective assessment year. Therefore, the allowability of the present claim of the assessee cannot be relied on the principle of consistency. Further, the principle of consistency cannot override the specific statutory requirement contained in section 199 of the Act read with Rule 37BA of the Rules. Since the statute itself mandates reconciliation of TDS credit with the income offered to tax during the relevant year, the claim of consistency does not advance the case of the assessee. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, we are of the view that one more opportunity deserves to be granted to the assessee to furnish the necessary reconciliation before the Ld. AO. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and restore the matter to the file of the Ld. AO with a direction to examine the claim of TDS credit afresh in accordance with the provisions of section 199 of the Act and Rule 37BA of the Rules. The assessee shall furnish complete reconciliation between the TDS claimed

and the corresponding income offered to tax. The Ld. AO shall verify the same and allow the TDS credit in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 8th July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 8th July, 2026. Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Ashoka Developers & Builders Ltd, c/o B Narsing Rao & Co.LLP Plot No.554, Road No.92, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad 500096 2 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(1) Hyderabad 3 Pr. CIT –CENTRAL, Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File

By Order

TUMMALACHARLA Digitally signed by TUMMALACHARLA LAKSHMI NARAYANA DN: cn=TUMMALACHARLA LAKSHMI LAKSHMI NARAYANA, c=IN, o=INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ou=INCOME TAX NARAYANA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCH Date: 2026.07.08 16:57:47 +05'30'