RACHANA BHARAT FOZDAR,MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CIRCLE 41(4)(1), MUMBAI

Dismissal of Appeal- Violation of Natural Justice. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal for alleged non prosecution, despite the fact that the Appellant had sought adjournment within time, which stood duly acknowledged on the Income tax Portal, and therefore the dismissal is bad in law, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice. 2. Ignoring Adjournment Granted / Pending. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the adjournment request seeking time up to 31.01.2026 was successfully submitted and pending, and therefore the appeal could not have been treated as not pursued. The impugned order passed ignoring the pending adjournment is void ab initio. 3. Unlawful Reliance on Non-Prosecution Jurisprudence. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying on decisions such as CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharjee and Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., which are inapplicable, as the Appellant had actively pursued the appeal, responded to notices, and sought adjournment for filing remaining details. 4. Failure to Adjudicate Grounds on Merits. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in not adjudicating the grounds of appeal independently on merits, as mandated under section 250(6) of the Act, and merely reiterated the Assessing Officers findings, rendering the appellate order non- speaking and unsustainable. 5. Erroneous Confirmation of Rejection of Rectification u/s 154.

Misinterpretation of Section 199 read with Rule 37BA. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in holding that the Appellant was not entitled to TDS credit in A.Y. 2010-11, ignoring the settled legal position that TDS credit must be allowed in the year in which the corresponding income is offered to tax, irrespective of the year of deduction. 7. Incorrect Assumption Regarding Accounting System. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in drawing adverse inference regarding adoption of the cash system of accounting, ignoring that the Appellant is an individual deriving only interest income, for whom cash system is statutorily permissible, and no formal evidence is required. 8. Failure to Consider Long-Pending Rectification History. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant had been continuously pursuing rectification since 2013, and the issue involved is purely arithmetical and procedural, and therefore ought to have been resolved rather than dismissed on technical grounds. 9. Mechanical Confirmation of AOs Findings. The impugned order suffers from non-application of mind, inasmuch as the Ld. CIT(A) mechanically confirmed the AOs conclusions without examining the material already on record OR granting effective opportunity to complete remaining compliances. 10. Erroneous Levy and Continuation of Demand and Interest. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining consequential tax demand and interest u/s 234B, 234C and 220(2), which are purely consequential to the wrongful denial of TDS credit and hence liable to be deleted. 11. Order Bad in Law and Facts. The impugned order passed u/s 250 is contrary to law, facts, equity and principles of natural justice, and is liable to be set aside in entirety. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a senior citizen aged 75 years. The assessee filed the return of income declaring a total income of Rs. 29,31,070/-. The tax liability was discharged by way of advance tax, and the assessee also claimed credit of TDS amounting to Rs. 3,58,747/- deducted under Section 194A of the Act. However, while processing the return, the CPC granted TDS credit of only Rs. 2,00,937/- and denied credit of the balance amount of Rs. 1,57,810/- for the impugned assessment year. Aggrieved by the denial of TDS credit, the assessee filed an application for rectification before the Ld. AO. The Ld. AO, however, rejected the rectification application without affording the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Thereafter, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The appeal was fixed for hearing on 16.01.2026, and on the said date the assessee filed an adjournment application through the Income-tax portal requesting that the hearing be adjourned till 31.01.2026. However, without considering the adjournment request or examining the merits of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex parte order on 17.01.2026. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee has preferred the present appeal before us.