YAMAHA MOTOR SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ,DELHI vs. PR. CIT -7 DELHI, DELHI

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.8152/Del/2025 [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Yamaha Motor Solutions Pr. CIT-7, (India) Pvt. Ltd. Room No.215, C/o- KNM &7 Partners, Law Vs Central Revenue Building, Office, First Floor, The Great New Delhi-110002 Eastern Centre, 70 Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019 PAN:AAACY1750E Appellant Respondent Assessee by Shri Mukesh Singhal, CA & Ms. Aanchal Kumari, Adv. Revenue by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 23.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement 15.05.2026 ORDER PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,

The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 20.11.2025 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi,[hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’] arising out of assessment order dated 12.01.2021 assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.

ITA No.8152/Del/2025 1. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)-Delhi (hereinafter, referred as "CIT (A)") under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter, referred as "the Act) is bad both in the eye of law and facts. 2. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), has erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal without adjudicating the merits of the grounds raised by the Appellant, merely on the basis that the adjustments originate from the intimation passed under section 143(1) of the Act, and thereby failed to exercise appellate jurisdiction vested in him under the Act. 3. On the basis of facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), has erred both on facts and in law in dismissing the ground relating to non-grant of TDS credit of INR 99,54,581/-, despite the fact that such TDS is duly reflected in Form 26AS and was claimed in the return of income, and without appreciating that the Assessing Officer failed to grant legitimate credit for prepaid taxes while passing the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming interest levied u/s 234A of IN 33,870/- despite the fact that the Appellant had filed its return of income on 30 November 2018 vide e-filing acknowledgement number 383177831301118, under section 139(1) of the Act, being the statutory due date applicable to Appellant required to furnish Form 3CEB u/s 92E of the Act. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that no delay occurred in filing the return, and accordingly no interest was leviable. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming interest levied u/s 234B amounting to INR5,75,790/- without appreciating that the entire tax liability was already covered by TDS credit available to the Appellant and therefore no advance tax was payable. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal without dealing with the specific submissions, evidence, Form 26AS, and legal contentions placed on record, thereby rendering the appellate order non-speaking, mechanical, and unsustainable in law. 3. The only issue emanating from the above grounds of appeal raised by the assessee is regarding the non-grant of TDS credit of Rs.99,54,581/-, levy of interest of Rs.33,870/- under section 234A and Rs.5,75,790/- u/s 234B of the Act. Page | 2

ITA No.8152/Del/2025 4. As per the brief factual matrix of the case are that the assessee had filed its Return of Income on 30.11.2018, declaring income of Rs.1,69,03,560/-. In the aforesaid Return of Income, the TDS Credit of Rs.99,54,581/- was claimed order u/s 143(1A) passed on 23.03.2020, whereby the claimed TDS Credit of Rs.99,54,581/- was not allowed. The appellant moved rectification application under section 154 of the Act, whereby an order dated 23.03.2020 was passed granting the assessee complete credit of the claimed TDS. The ld. Assessing Officer passed the order under section 143(3) of the Act on 12.01.2021 and accepted the Return of Income. In the impugned assessment order, the AO proceeded to deny the assessee its claim of credit of TDS of Rs.99,54,581/-. Aggrieved by the impugned action, the assessee moved an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. First Appellate Authority passed his order dated 20.11.2025 by dismissing the appeal of the assessee. He concluded that no addition has been made in order under section 143(3) of the Act and that the present controversy is not emanating from the said order. He also observed in para 5.4 of his order that the assessee has not brought on records any material to allude that he order under section 143(1) dated 23.03.2020 was contested. It was finally concluded that if the assessee is aggrieved by the order u/s 143(1), he ought to have moved an appeal against that the present issue cannot be contested qua the order u/s 143(3) of the Act. The ld. DR argued in favour of the order of the lower authorities.

ITA No.8152/Del/2025 5. We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on record. We are of the considered view that the ld. CIT(A) has omitted to consider the controversy before him in true analysis of facts on records. Before him, the assessee has merely contested for the grant of TDS credit of Rs.99,54,581/-. We have noted that the said TDS credit was denied by the Revenue through order under section 143(1), but this mistake was rectified by the Revenue through its order under section 154 dated 23.09.2020. Thus, there cannot be a case of any grievance of the assessee qua the order u/s 143(1) of the Act. We have noted that the ld. AO while not giving credit of TDS to the assessee has possibly omitted to consider his own order under section 154 of the Act dated 2309.2020. It is trite law that a tax payers is entitled to be given credit of tax paid by it by way of TDS or advance tax or otherwise. It is rightful due of an assessee and cannot be denied even by way of inadvertent omission. It is not the case of the Revenue that denial of TDS credit is based upon any mismatch in tax credit or the TDS claim of the assessee saving from any other deficiency or shortcoming. It is also not the case of the Revenue that income corresponding to the TDS credit claim has not been offered for taxation. So being the case credit of TDS cannot be denied to the tax payer. Accordingly, we allow the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee and set-aside the orders of lower authorities and direct the ld. Assessing Officer to allow the claim of TDS of Rs.99,54,581/- as well as to delete the interest imposed under section 234A and 234B of the Act.

ITA No.8152/Del/2025 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15th May, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- [RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN] [AMITABH SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:. 15.05.2026 Shekhar Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. PCIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi