HARISH ARORA,LUCKNOW vs. ACIT/DCIT, RANGE-3, LUCKNOW

I.T.A. No.177/LKW/2026 Assessment Year:2009-10 1

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “SMC”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.177/LKW/2026 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Harish Arora Vs. ACIT/DCIT, Range-3 559 KHA/319, New Shrinagar Pratakshya Kar Bhawan, Narhai, Nagar, Alambagh, Lucknow- Lucknow-226001. 226005. PAN: AAKPA1781E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Revant Rohit Bhalla, CA Respondent by Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT (D.R.) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA: A.M. (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.177/LKW/2026 has been filed by the assessee for assessment year 2009-10 against impugned appellate order dated 17.12.2025 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1083775812(1) of Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Addl/JCIT(A)” for short]. The grounds of appeal are as under: -

“1. That the Assessing Officer [ JAO / FAO ] / Central Processing Centre and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [here-in-after referred to as the Ld. CIT (A)’s] have erred in not granting credit of TDS reflected in 26AS of the appellant and dismissing the appeal as not maintainable upholding the erroneous intimation issued u/s 143(1) of the ITA, 1961 vide DIN: 2O10200910013171643T disallowing credit of TDS/TCS claimed by the appellant amounting to Rs. 2,39,336/- without justification and is seriously challenged. 2. That the Assessing Officer [ JAO / FAO ] / Central Processing Centre and the Ld. CIT (A) have erred on facts and in law in disallowing credit of TDS of Rs. 2,39,336/- without appreciating the facts of the case and not granting legitimate TDS credit to the appellant. 3. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not taking cognizance of the numerous rectification requests u/s 154 of the ITA, 1961 submitted by the appellant and

I.T.A. No.177/LKW/2026 Assessment Year:2009-10 2

also sent on this official email on 19.02.2020 and sustained the demand which violates the principles of natural justice and fairness. 4. That the Assessing Officer [ JAO / FAO ] / Central Processing Centre and the Ld. CIT (A) have erred in not considering the repeated rectification -eq-jests submitted by the appellant along with the supporting documents and Form 26AS duly reflecting the TDS as claimed by the appellant which is bad in law. 5. That the Assessing Officer [ JAO / FAO] / Central Processing Centre and the Ld. CIT (A) have ignored the detailed written submissions forming part of the Income Tax Records on illegal and arbitrary premise confirming of cisallowance of credit of TDS, is bad in law and blatantly against the Citizen’s Charter of the CBDT. 6. That the Assessing Officer [ JAO / FAO ] / Central Processing Centre has erred on facts an in law in adjustment of refunds of AY 2012-13, AY 2018- 19, AY 2021-22 and AY 2022-23 against the fictitious demand AY 2009- 10, which is against the law and seriously challenged. 7. That the said adjustment of refund in subsequent years against fictitious demand of AY 2009-10 is arbitrary and illegal and deserves to be quashed «nd the appellant prays that the adjusted refunds to be released forthwith along with interest under section 244A of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 8. That the Ld. AO has erred in law and in procedure laid down by the ITA, 1961 by delaying the disposal of numerous rectification applications filed ty the appellant thereby delaying natural justice and causing unnecessary hardship to the appellant 9. The appellant craves leave to modify any of the grounds of appeal mentioned above and / or to add any fresh grounds as and when it is (B) In this case, several grounds have been raised by the appellant– assessee in the present appeal. However, the issue in dispute in the grounds of appeal are related to the grievance of the assessee that due credit for tax deducted at source (TDS) has not been granted. The Authorized Representative submitted that the assessee approached the Departmental Authorities on multiple occasions seeking rectification of this issue, but the grievance remained unresolved to date and had not been addressed satisfactorily. At the time of hearing, the Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee further submitted that the assessee was entitled not only to the credit of tax deducted at source (TDS), but also to interest on the amount of refund which was wrongly adjusted by the Income Tax Department against an alleged outstanding demand. It was contended that

I.T.A. No.177/LKW/2026 Assessment Year:2009-10 3 such adjustment is not in accordance with law, and consequently, the assessee is eligible for due interest thereon. The Ld. AR, therefore, prayed that the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with appropriate and specific directions to verify the claim of the assessee and to grant due credit of TDS along with admissible interest, in accordance with law. The Ld. Departmental Representative expressed no objection to this. (C) Both the sides have been heard. Materials on record have been perused. Having regard to the foregoing paragraph (B) of this order, the Assessing Officer is directed to give credit for tax deducted at source, in accordance with law and also grant refund to the assessee along with interest, if the assessee is eligible, in accordance with law. (D) In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. (Order pronounced in the open court on 29/04/2026)

Sd/. Sd/. (ANADEE NATH MISSHRA) Accountant Member Dated: 29/04/2026 Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS) Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. Concerned CIT D.R. ITAT 4.