PUSHPAM PLAZA PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ITO WARD 4(5), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3067/PUN/2025Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 April 2026AY 2013-148 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee should be granted a refund for excess TDS as the income and TDS credit were available to the AO. It also held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) were not attracted as it was not a case of concealment or under-reporting, but rather a situation where tax liability was already covered by TDS.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a private limited company, failed to file regular income tax returns for multiple assessment years despite TDS being deducted. It later filed returns in response to a notice under Section 148, but faced technical issues with the portal. The Assessing Officer assessed income as declared but disallowed refund of excess TDS and initiated penalty proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee is entitled to a refund of excess TDS when returns were filed late due to technical issues, and whether penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable for non-filing of return when TDS covers the tax liability.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271(F)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE

Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa Khare- AR
Hearing: 13.04.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B”BENCH PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA. Nos.962, 963 & 3067/PUN/2025 (A.Y. 2013-14) ITA. Nos.964, 965/PUN/2025 (A.Y. 2015-16) ITA. Nos.966 & 3068/PUN/2025 (A.Y. 2016-17) Pushpam Plaza Pvt. Ltd., Vs I.T.O., Wd.4(5), 51 Sahani Sujan Park Pmt Building, Krushanna Kunj, Lulanagar, Shankarsheth Haveli, Pune -411 040 Road,Pune-411037 Maharashtra. Maharashtra,

PAN.No.AADCP0934C (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent)

Assessee by Smt. Deepa Khare- AR Revenue by Shri.Ratnakar Shelake, Addl.JCIT- DR

सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 13.04.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of 24.04.2026 Pronouncement

ORDER PER MANISH BORAD, AM:

The captioned appeals at the instance of assessee are directed against the following orders of Ld.CIT(A) NFAC:

2 ITA. Nos.962, 963 & 3067/PUN/2025, ITA. Nos.964, 965/PUN/2025, ITA. Nos.966 & 3068/PUN/2025 A.Y. 2013-14,A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17 Pushpam Plaza Pvt. Ltd.,

ITA No. Assessment Year Date of order(CIT(A) NFAC A.Y. 2013-14 ITA. No.962/PUN/2025 24.06.2024 ITA. No.963/PUN/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 25.06.2024 A.Y. 2013-14 ITA. No.3067/PUN/2025 24.06.2024 A.Y. 2015-16 ITA. No.964 PUN/2025 30.07.2024 A.Y. 2015-16 ITA. No. 965 PUN/2025 24.06.2024 A.Y. 2016-17 ITA. No. 966 PUN/2025 30.07.2024 A.Y. 2016-17 ITA. No.3068/PUN/2025 24.06.2024

2.

Registry has informed that the instant appeals are barred by limitation for 467 days. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the application for the condonation of delay and the affidavit commonly filed for all the appeals stated that reasonable cause prevented the assessee from filing the appeal within prescribed time. We have gone through the contents of the affidavit and on due consideration of the submissions of both the sides and considering the judicial precedent laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Collector Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst.Katiji & Ors.reported in (1987) 2 SCC 107 and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya

3 ITA. Nos.962, 963 & 3067/PUN/2025, ITA. Nos.964, 965/PUN/2025, ITA. Nos.966 & 3068/PUN/2025 A.Y. 2013-14,A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17 Pushpam Plaza Pvt. Ltd.,

Pradesh judgement dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382) hereby condone the delay in filing of the instant appeals and admit them for adjudication.

3.

At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the ITA No.963/PN/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 deserves to be dismissed since the assessee has subsequently again filed the appeal on the very same grounds and Assessment Year vide ITA 3067/PN/2025. On due consideration of the fact we dismiss the ITA No.963/PN/2025 as not pressed being duplicate appeal.

4.

So far as the remaining appeals are concerned, three appeals, on quantum addition are for A.Y. 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17 and the remaining have been filed for the same assessment years against the penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Common facts as stated by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the assessee a Private Limited Company did not filed regular return of income inspite of the fact that the Tax at Source has been deducted for impugned assessment years. Subsequently, in reply to the notice u/s.148 of the Act the assessee had filed returns and also claimed TDS as per form No.26AS, however the

4 ITA. Nos.962, 963 & 3067/PUN/2025, ITA. Nos.964, 965/PUN/2025, ITA. Nos.966 & 3068/PUN/2025 A.Y. 2013-14,A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17 Pushpam Plaza Pvt. Ltd.,

Ld.Assessing Officer on one hand did not accepted the return of income on account of some technical defect but finally assessed the income, as declared by the assessee in the return of income but allowed the credit for tax deducted at source only to the extent of tax liability arising in the return income and did not grant the refund of excess TDS because the assessee has not filed the regular return of income. The Ld.AO also initiated and levied the penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act on the income declared in the return in response to the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act. The assessee failed to get any relief before Ld. CIT(A) and now in appeal before this Tribunal. The Ld.AR prayed for grant of refund of excess TDS and deletion of penalty. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the order of the Ld.CIT(A).

5.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. So far as quantum appeals for A.Y. 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17 are concerned the sole issue raised is non grant of excess TDS credit. We observe that the assessee which is Private Limited Company and is required to file income tax return regularly failed to file the return of income in the impugned assessment year. Undisputedly TDS has been deducted for all these three years in question. Further, the assessee in response to

5 ITA. Nos.962, 963 & 3067/PUN/2025, ITA. Nos.964, 965/PUN/2025, ITA. Nos.966 & 3068/PUN/2025 A.Y. 2013-14,A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17 Pushpam Plaza Pvt. Ltd.,

notice u/s.148 of the Act has filed the return and has claimed the refund for the excess TDS deducted. We also note that ITR filed by the assessee for the impugned assessment years in response to notice u/s.148 of the Act were not reflecting in the e-filing portal or CPC Portal due to some technical reason. However, the Ld. Assessing Officer on one hand treated it as no return case but proceeded to assess the income as declared by the assessee in the income tax return, the copy of which was provided by the assessee in respect of each of the impugned assessment years. However, while calculating the tax liability the Ld.Assessing Officer has given the credit of the TDS only to the extent of tax liability calculated on the assessed income but for the excess TDS, the Ld.AO did not grant the refund and has simultaneously initiated the penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act for alleged concealment of income. So far as non grant of TDS deducted credit available to assessee as per form 26 AS we are inclined to hold that since Assessing Officer has assessed the income based on the information available in the Income-tax return filed by the assessee and the Ld.AO has also granted credit of TDS to the extent of tax liability for respective assessment years, we are of the considered view that the Ld. Assessing Officer should have granted refund of excess TDS credit available with the assessee

6 ITA. Nos.962, 963 & 3067/PUN/2025, ITA. Nos.964, 965/PUN/2025, ITA. Nos.966 & 3068/PUN/2025 A.Y. 2013-14,A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17 Pushpam Plaza Pvt. Ltd.,

since the information relating to the income as well as TDS credit were available with the assessing officer and they were also mentioned by the assessee in the income tax return filed (though not appearing on the portal due to technical reason). In view thereof so far as the quantum appeals are concerned the common issue raised by the assessee for assessment year A.Y. 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17 praying for grant of refund of excess TDS credit is hereby allowed and Ld. JAO is directed to grant the refund for the excess TDS deducted after due verification. Common grounds of appeal raised by the assessee for the impugned three assessment years vide ITA No.962/PUN/2025, ITA No. 965/PUN/2025 & ITA No. 3068/PUN/2025 are allowed.

6.

So far as penalty appeals are concerned, we note that the tax payable by the assessee on the income assessed for the respective assessment years already stood paid in the form of Tax deducted at source. Rather TDS deducted is more than the actual tax liability. Certainly the assessee being private limited company is required to file return of income and in absence of said filing the penalty provisions for non-filing of return are clearly attracted u/s. 271(F) of the Act. However, in our considered view the alleged penalties under section u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act are not

7 ITA. Nos.962, 963 & 3067/PUN/2025, ITA. Nos.964, 965/PUN/2025, ITA. Nos.966 & 3068/PUN/2025 A.Y. 2013-14,A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17 Pushpam Plaza Pvt. Ltd.,

attracted because it is not case of concealment or under reporting of income but it is a case where the tax has already been deducted at source much more than the tax liability calculated by the Assessing Officer in the quantum proceedings and it is not a case of tax evasion. It is not the case of mens rea for evading the tax liability but in a simple case of non-filing of return. We, therefore, set aside the finding of the Ld.CIT(A) and delete the impugned penalty levied u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act for A.Y. 2013-14, 2015-16, 2016-17. Common grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in ITA No.964/PUN/2025, ITA No. 966/PUN/2025 & ITA No. 3067/PUN/2025 are allowed.

7.

In the result, ITA No.963/PN/2025 filed by the assessee is dismissed and remaining appeals filed by the assessee are allowed as per terms indicated hereinabove.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.04.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE ) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune Dated: 24/04/2026 Ashwini

8 ITA. Nos.962, 963 & 3067/PUN/2025, ITA. Nos.964, 965/PUN/2025, ITA. Nos.966 & 3068/PUN/2025 A.Y. 2013-14,A.Y. 2015-16 & A.Y. 2016-17 Pushpam Plaza Pvt. Ltd.,

Digitally signed by Satish Kumar Madishetty Satish Kumar Madishetty Date: 2026.04.27 17:59:06 +05'30'

Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant, 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, “B” Bench 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER,

(Asstt.Registrar)ITAT, Pune

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →