PLUTONIUM BUSINESS SOLUTION PRIVATE LIMTED ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 8(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 566/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 April 2026AY 2023-245 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to refund the balance TDS of Rs. 7,06,909/- after verifying that the assessee had offered the corresponding income to tax and had not claimed credit in subsequent years. The plea for carry forward of TDS was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed TDS credit of Rs. 7,82,214/- for the Assessment Year 2023-2024, but only Rs. 75,306/- was allowed. The remaining Rs. 7,06,909/- was neither granted as credit nor allowed to be carried forward.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the denial of full TDS credit and the alternative plea for carry forward of the unutilized TDS credit.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 143(1),Section 139(5)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, C BENCH, MUMBAI

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the Order, dated 19/11/2025, passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Panaji [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Rectification Order, dated 05/06/2024, passed under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’], for the Assessment Year 2023-2024. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. Ground No. 1:

1.1.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, ADDL/JCIT (A), Panaji ('the Assessment Year 2023-2024

CIT(A)'] erred in upholding the Rectification Order passed u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') passed by the Deputy Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru, by not allowing the balance TDS credit claimed amounting to Rs. 7,06,909/-.

1.2.

Therefore, the Appellant humbly prays that the balance TDS credit amounting to Rs. 7,06,909/- as claimed by the Appellant be allowed.

2.

Ground No. 2:

2.1.

On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disallowing the carry forward of balance TDS amounting to Rs. 7,06,909/- for future adjustment in accordance with Rule 37BA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, out of the total TDS credit claimed amounting to Rs. 7,82,253/- in the return of income u/s 139(5) of the Act.

2.2.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that there is no statutory provision for carry forward of TDS.

2.3.

Therefore, the Appellant prays that the carry forward of TDS credit amounting to Rs. 7,06,909/- be allowed.”

3.

We have heard both the sides on the above grounds and have perused the material on record. The solitary issue that arises for consideration in the present appeal pertains to rejection of Assessee’s claim for credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) by the Assessing Officer and the Learned CIT(A).

4.

The relevant facts in brief are that the Assessee-Company was, at the relevant time, engaged in the business of real estate construction of residential and commercial properties. The Assessee-Company converted its fixed asset, being land, into stock-in-trade during Financial Year 2019-2020, and developed a business park (namely, Plutonium Business Park) on the said land comprising of office units. During the previous year relevant to Assessment Year 2023-2024, the Assessee undertook transaction pertaining to five units (bearing Unit Nos. 1209, 1210, 1211, 1212 and 1402) for total transaction value of INR.7,82,30,500/- with corresponding TDS of INR.7,82,214/-. In the return of income for the Assessment Year 2023-2024, the Assessee-

2 Assessment Year 2023-2024

Company offered to tax Capital Gains Income of INR.7,16,436/- in respect of three units sold and claimed credit of TDS of INR.7,82,214/- as reflecting in Form 26AS. However, the Assessee was allowed tax credit of only INR.75,306/- vide Intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act and vide Rectification Order under Section 154 of the Act. The appeal preferred by the Assessee- Company was also dismissed. The Learned CIT(A) neither granted credit of balance TDS of INR.7,06,909/-, nor did the Learned CIT(A) accept the Assessee’s alternative plea to permit carry forward of the aforesaid TDS amount to subsequent assessment years for claiming credit. Therefore, the Assessee has carried the issue in appeal before this Tribunal.

5.

There is no dispute to the fact that the TDS Credit of INR.7,82,214/- pertained to income of INR.7,82,30,500/-. It has been contended by the Assessee that since the Assessee had claimed deduction for the TDS amount during the relevant previous year, no TDS credit has been claimed by the Assessee for the said amount during the relevant previous year. The alternative plea of permitting carry forward of the TDS amount has also been rejected. It has been stated that the Assessee has already offered to tax income from sale of units under percentage completion method and had also paid corresponding taxes. It has not been disputed by the Revenue the Assessee is offering to tax the profits from the project (including the 5 units under consideration) under Project Completion Method. It also not disputed that the balance TDS amount of INR.7,06,909/- was reflected in Form 26AS of the Assessee for the relevant period. Therefore, given the facts and circumstances of the present case, we deem it appropriate to direct the Assessing Officer to refund balance TDS of INR.7,06,909/- after verifying that the Assessee had offered to tax the corresponding income from sale of the 5 units to tax under consideration and had not claimed credit of the aforesaid balance TDS

3 Assessment Year 2023-2024

amount of INR.7,06,909/- during the subsequent assessment years. The Assessee is directed to place before the Assessing Officer the reconciliation statement and supporting documents to enable the Assessing Officer to carry out the aforesaid verification. It is clarified that the Assessing Officer would be at liberty to adjust the outstanding demand if any with the aforesaid amount as per the law. In terms of the aforesaid, Ground No. 1 to 1.2 raised by the Assessee are for statistical purposes while Ground No. 2 to 2.3 pertaining to the alternative plea are dismissed.

6.

In result, the present appeal preferred by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

Order pronounced on 28.04.2026. (Vikram Singh Yadav) Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांकDated : 28.04.2026 Milan, LDC

4 Assessment Year 2023-2024

आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant

1.

""थ"/ The Respondent. 2. आयकरआयु"/ The CIT

3.

"धान आयकर आयु"/ Pr.CIT 4. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT,

5.

Mumbai गाड" फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशा नुसार/ BY ORDER, स"ािपत"ित //// उप/सहायक पंजीकार /(Dy./Asstt.

More judgments on Section 154

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →