NIKUNJ RAJESH JASANI ,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 42(1)(1), MUMBAI

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण�ायपीठमुंबईम�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No.9434/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Nikunj Rajesh Jasani Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax B/701, Vedant Raj Maitri, Circle 42(1)(1) YougiEksar Junction Yohi Nagar, Kautilya Bhavan, C-41 to C-43, G Vs. Borivali West S.O, Mumbai- Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra 400092 (East), Mumbai- 400051 PAN: ABLPJ5909R Assessee- अपीलाथ� / Appellant Revenue-��थ�/ Respondent :

: Ms. Ankita Gorde Assesseeby : Shri Paresh Deshpande (Sr. DR) Revenueby : 06.05.2026 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : 11.05.2026

O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: This appeal is instituted by the assessee, directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals ADDL/JCIT (A)-2, Chennai [in short,“the Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 06.10.2025, for the assessment year 2009-10,arises from order u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), dated 02.03.2011 passed by Central Processing Center (CPC) (in short, “Ld. AO”). The grounds of appeal are as under:

ITA No. 9434/Mum/2025 Nikunj Rajesh Jasani “1. Ground No. 1: 1.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, ADDL/JCIT (A)-2 Chennai ('the CIT(A)') vide order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') dated 06th October 2025 erred in holding that the appeal was barred by limitation accordingly not adjudicating on the merits of the case. 1.2. The Hon'ble CIT(A) thereby erred in dismissing the appeal without adhering to the principles of judicial propriety and violating the principles of natural justice. 1.3. Therefore, the Appellant humbly prays that the matter be remanded back to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-42(1)(1), Mumbai ('the AO') as he failed to allow in the Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act the TDS credit as claimed in the Retum of Income by the Appellant. 2. Ground No. 2: 2.1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO erred in computing the net amount payable amounting to Rs. 2,94,280/- of the Appellant for the year under consideration vide Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act, by granting short claim of TDS amounting to Rs. 2,46,724/-without appreciating the fact that the said TDS credit claimed in Return of Income is reflecting in Form 26AS. 2.2. Therefore, the Appellant humbly prays that the TDS credit amounting to Rs. 4,66,936/-as claimed in the Return of Income be allowed. 3. Ground No. 3: 3.1. The Appellant craves leave to add to, alter, and/ or amend the foregoing grounds of appeal.” 2. Briefly stated, the initiation of present case was against the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 02.03.2011. The main controversy arose was, the TDS Credit claimed of the assessee for Rs.4,66,936/- out of Rs.5,24,699/-, as reflected in Form-26AS of the assessee, has been curtailed by the CPC while processing the return of assessee u/s 143(1) by reducing the claim of assessee amounting to Rs.2,20,212/-. Further, the refund claim of the assessee, starting from assessment year 2013-14 to 2023-24 were adjusted against the aforesaid demand. Subsequently, while looking into the “response to outstanding demand” tab on the

ITA No. 9434/Mum/2025 Nikunj Rajesh Jasani e-filing portal, the assessee finds that there is still a demand of Rs.2,92,744/- which is outstanding to be paid. 3. In this case, initially assessee was unaware about the issuance of intimation u/s 143(1), which as per assessee was never served on him. The assessee then approached the department by making raising a grievance on the grievance portal vide acknowledgement no.16074546, requesting the department to provide the copy of 143(1) under which such demand was raised on the assessee. The assessee was provided with the information vide email dated April 7, 2025 by Circle 42(1)(1), Mumbai stating that the copy of intimation u/s 143(1) for assessment year 2009-10 is enclosed herewith. On downloading of the copy of said intimation, it is found that it is not a proper copy of intimation but screenshot of the intimation window on departments portal, according to which the intimation was served to assessee on 12.03.2011, however such fact is denied by the assessee stating that nothing has been received by the assessee for which the revenue also did not have any proof to substantiate that the intimation was properly served on the assessee in 2011. The assessee, thereafter, approached by way of an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however the contention of assessee that the intimation was first time received by the assessee in 2025 was not accepted by the Ld. CIT(A) and he computed the delay in filing of appeal from the date of intimidation dated 02.03.2011. Accordingly, there was a delay of approx 14 years. The appeal of assessee, therefore, stood dismissed in limine as barred by limitation. 3

ITA No. 9434/Mum/2025 Nikunj Rajesh Jasani 4. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid decision of Ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred an appeal before us. 5. At the outset, it is submitted by the Ld. AR representing the assessee, that it is a simple case of denial of TDS, which the assessee has legitimately credited with and reflected in his Form-26AS. A copy of Form-26AS is placed before us which is downloaded on 20th September, 2025 and still the credit as claimed by the assessee is reflecting in the said 26AS form. In view of such circumstances, it was the prayer that the matter may be remitted back to the file of Ld. AO for verification and granting the credit of TDS, for which the assessee is lawfully entitled to. 6. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR supported the orders of revenue authorities.However, have not seriously objected, ifthe matter is restored back to the file of ld. AO for verification and fresh adjudication. 7. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the facts on records. Admittedly in the present case, the assessee has TDS Credits available in Form- 26AS. Therefore, the credit of same cannot be denied, which will cause recovery of same taxes twice, unless on appreciation of the facts it is revealed that the assessee is not entitled to such credits in his form 26AS for the relevant period. We, thus, in the interest of substantial justice,asagreed by both the parties, deem it appropriate to restore this matter back to the file of ld. AO for verification of assessee’s TDS claim and allow the same in accordance with law.

ITA No. 9434/Mum/2025 Nikunj Rajesh Jasani 8. Needless to say, the assessee shall be afforded with reasonable opportunity of being heard in the set aside proceedings. The assessee is also directed to assist the Ld. AO in set aside proceedings without any fail, in case of any default on the part of assessee, no further opportunity shall be granted. 9. In result, the appeal of assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 11-05-2026.

Sd//- Sd//- (BEENA PILLAI) (ARUN KHODPIA) Judicial Member Accountant Member Mumbai, Dated : 11-05-2026. Ankit K., Sr. PS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 4. Guard File 5. CIT

BY ORDER,

(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai