NEERAJA RAVIKUMAR PURANAM ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 22(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3743/MUM/2026Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 June 2026AY 2024-256 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the admission of additional evidence, finding it crucial for adjudicating the assessee's claim. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s order confirming an intimation under Section 143(1) for not allowing credit of TDS deducted from salary. The assessee sought to admit additional evidence, a salary slip, to prove the TDS deduction.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be allowed credit for TDS deducted from salary when the employer allegedly failed to deposit it, and if additional evidence can be admitted at the appellate stage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 250,Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN

For Respondent: Ms. Bhoomika Patel
Hearing: 25.06.2026Pronounced: 30.06.2026

आदेश / ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 19.01.2026 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), by the Office of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/NFAC for the assessment

2 ITA No.3743/Mum/2026 Neeraja Ravikumar Puranam

year 2024-25. The following grounds are raised by the assessee are reproduced below: “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["the Ld. CIT(A)"] erred in confirming the order passed u/s 154 of the Income tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act') which is void and invalid. 2. On the facts and the circumstance of the case, theLd. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order passed u/s 154 of the Act by upholding the intimation u/s 143(1) for not allowing the credit of tax deducted of Rs.2,50,399 by the employer from the salary. 3. On the facts and the circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order u/s 154 of the Act by upholding the intimation u/s 143(1) for not allowing the credit of tax deducted of Rs.2,50,399 by the employer from the salary without considering the facts there is no default of the Appellant. 4. On the facts and the circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred considering the salary amount received by the Appellant of Rs.8,44,705 and not the entire amount of the salary of Rs.11,36,835. 5. On the facts and the circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the order u/s 154 of the Act by upholding the intimation u/s 143(1) for not allowing the credit of tax deducted by the employer of Rs.2,50,399 from the salary without considering the facts there the employee cannot be penalized for non-depositing of the TDS by the employer in view of various Jurisdictional Bombay High Court. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred by ignoring and not following the decision of jurisdictional Honorable Bombay High Court Order on similar law and also Honorable ITAT on similar facts and law, being precedent, which were duly submitted during the First Appeal proceeding. 7. The Appellant prays that it may be allowed to add, alter or amend the above grounds of appeal and to make detailed submissions at the time of appeal." 2. At the outset, ld. A.R. filed an application under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 for admission of

3 ITA No.3743/Mum/2026 Neeraja Ravikumar Puranam

additional evidence. The contents of the said application is reproduced hereinbelow: “ KASH & CO Chartered Accountants B-101, Salasar Srushti Co-Op HSG Soc, Temba Road, Bhayander West, Thane – 401101, Tel: +91-98190-70457 | Email: kumarashokr@gmail.com

Date: 25.06.2026 To The Hon'ble Member, Bench SMC, The Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Respected Sir, Ref: NEERAJA RAVIKUMAR PURANAM ("the Appellant") Appellant's Appeal No.: 3743/Mum/2026 AY: 2024-25 Date of Hearing: 25.06.2026 Sub: Application under Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 for admission of additional evidence. We refer to the above hearing fixed on 25.06.2026 and, under the instructions from the above refer Appellant, filing herewith the salary slip for the month of September 2025 as additional evidence showing deduction of tax from the salary of the till Sep 2023 of Rs. 2,47,130 by the employer of the Appellant, i.e., Think & Learn Private Limited, during the AY 2024-25. The Appellant could not file the above evidence before the CIT(A), as the Appellant was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause from producing the same, which are very relevant to all the Grounds of Appeals. In light of the above, the Appellant most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to admit and take on record the Additional Evidence under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963.

4 ITA No.3743/Mum/2026 Neeraja Ravikumar Puranam

Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For KASH & CO (Signature) CA Ashok Kumar Suthar Proprietor Encl.: Salary Slip for September 2023”

3.

On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the application may be dismissed as the assessee could not place on record any evidence during the course of assessment and also before the First Appellate Authority. 4. I have heard the counsels for both the parties and material placed on record. I notice that the only effective ground raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in upholding the intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act by not allowing the credit of facts deducted by the employer from the salary of the assessee. Thus, the addition was upheld mainly on the ground that assessee could not produce any evidence before the revenue authorities with regard to the deduction of tax by the employer from the salary of the assessee. Now the present application has been filed for admission of additional evidence by placing on record pay/salary sleep. To my mind these document goes to the roots of the case in adjudicating the right of the assessee for claiming credit of tax deducted from his salary. Therefore, considering these facts the present application for admission of additional evidence is allowed as it is not going to cause prejudice to the rights of the respondents.

5 ITA No.3743/Mum/2026 Neeraja Ravikumar Puranam

5.

Since, I have allowed the application for admission of additional evidence which requires verification at the end of A.O. Therefore, the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of A.O. for verification of the additional evidence relied upon by the assessee and A.O. is directed to adjudicate the issue in question afresh in a de novo assessment. Needless to mention after providing opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. Before parting I make it clear that my decision to restore the matter back to the file of A.O. shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by the A.O. independently in accordance with law. 7. The grounds raised by the assessee are not being adjudicated on merits in view of my decision on application of admission of additional evidence. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.06.2026.

Sd/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER

Mumbai, Dated 30/06/2026 KK, PS

6 ITA No.3743/Mum/2026 Neeraja Ravikumar Puranam

आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant ��थ� / The Respondent. 2. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / The CIT(A) 3. 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / Concerned CIT िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,मु�बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/BY ORDER, स�ािपत �ित //True Copy//

उप/सहायक पंजीकार ( Asst. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मु�बई / ITAT, Mumbai

More judgments on Section 154

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →