JAGBIR SINGH,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 62(2), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4395/DEL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 June 2026AY 2012-133 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that an appeal to the ITAT is not the correct remedy when the AO is unable to give effect to the CIT(A)'s order due to ambiguity. The assessee should seek an appropriate remedy to resolve the ambiguity.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was time-barred by 52 days. The assessee claimed that the Assessing Officer (AO) failed to grant full TDS credit, despite the income being offered to tax in earlier years. The CIT(A) had allowed the appeal on the ground of allowing TDS credit.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT is the appropriate forum to address the AO's inability to implement a CIT(A) order due to ambiguity. The issue of allowing TDS credit was already decided by the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

N/A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HONBLE

PER SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 15.12.2025, for Assessment Year 2012-13.

2.

The appeal is time barred by 52 days. The assessee has filed an application citing reasons causing delay in filing of appeal. After perusal of the same, I am satisfied that delay in filing of appeal is not intentional, the delay has been caused for the reasons stated in the petition which appears to be bonafide. Thus, delay of 52 days in filing of appeal is condoned and appeal is admitted for decision on merits.

3.

Shri Rakesh Kumar, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the total TDS credit available to the assessee for AY 2012-13 is Rs.6,32,654/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) allowed TDS credit only to the extent of Rs.4,81,479/- and has failed to grant TDS credit of Rs.1,51,175/-. The ld. Counsel submits that the assessee has offered income to tax on accrual 1

ITA 4395/DEL/2026 JAGBIR SINGH basis and had offered the income to tax corresponding to the TDS not allowed in the AYs 2010- 11 and 2011-12 and has paid taxes thereon. Therefore, the benefit of TDS on income that has already been offered to tax should be allowed to the assessee. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the following decisions:

(i) BPTP Ltd. Resulting Company of M/s. Native Buildcon P. Ltd. which merged with M/s. BPTP Ltd. vs. DDIT in ITA No.7537/Del/2025 decided on 01.04.2026; (ii) CIT vs. Abbott Agency in ITA No.206 of 2012 decided on 27.09.2013 (Punjab &Haryana High Court); & (iii) Sumit Devendra Rajani vs. ACIT in SCL No. 2349 of 2014 decided on 23.06.2014 (Gujarat High Court). 4. Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar, representing the department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. DR submits that the appeal of the assessee has already been allowed by the CIT(A), hence, the present appeal is not sustainable.

5.

Rebutting the submissions made by ld. DR, the ld. AR submits that since directions given by the CIT(A) were ambiguous, the AO could not give effect to the findings of the CIT(A).

6.

Both sides heard. From perusal of the impugned order it emerges that the CIT(A) has allowed appeal of the assessee on the primary ground of allowing TDS credit. The CIT(A) has directed the AO to allow the credit of TDS as per the receipt offered by the appellant in his return of income and availability in 26AS. The short grievance of the assessee before the Tribunal is that the AO is unable to giving effect to the findings of the CIT(A). I am of considered view that against such an issue where the AO is unable to give effect to the order of the CIT(A), appeal before the Tribunal is not the right remedy. The assessee has to explore appropriate remedy under the provision of Act for removal of ambiguity in the order of First Appellate Authority, if any.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday the 23rd of June, 2026. Sd/- VIKAS AWASTHY JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi Dated: 29-Jun-2026

ITA 4395/DEL/2026 JAGBIR SINGH Copy to: JAGBIR SINGH, 1 E-356, STREET NO. 15, ASHOK NAGAR NEW DELHI-110093, 2 ITO WARD 62(2), NEW DELHI-110002, DELHI 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, DELHI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →