TORRENT GAS CHENNAI PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD, AHEMDABAD

ITA 1299/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 October 2026AY 2023-245 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Ground No. 1 was dismissed as not pressed, based on the assessee's submission. Regarding Ground No. 3, concerning the adjustment of Rs. 2,24,59,261, the Tribunal accepted the assessee's contention that this issue was resolved by the subsequent intimation order dated 30/03/2024. The Tribunal noted that the Departmental Representative could not controvert this fact. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order to the extent it pertains to the carry-forward of current year losses was set aside, and Ground No. 3 was allowed. For Ground No. 2, relating to the short grant of TDS, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessment records and grant credit as per law, taking into consideration the assessee's reply to the Section 139(9) notice. Ground No. 2 was allowed for statistical purposes. The appeal was partly allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Torrent Gas Chennai Private Limited, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) dated 25/02/2026, which upheld an intimation order under Section 143(1) dated 08/01/2024 for Assessment Year 2023-2024. The original return declared a loss of INR 56,01,78,083. Following a defect notice, a revised return was filed. The Section 143(1) intimation made adjustments reducing carry-forward losses by INR 2,24,59,261 and granting TDS credit of INR 38,06,529 instead of the claimed INR 38,62,588, resulting in a short credit of INR 56,059. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A). Subsequently, another intimation order dated 30/03/2024 was issued, granting the carry-forward of losses as per the revised return.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide three issues: 1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the ground challenging the issuance of the Section 143(1) intimation without granting an opportunity of being heard. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the short credit of tax deducted at source (TDS) by Rs. 56,059. 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in adjudicating the ground related to the adjustment of Rs. 2,24,59,261, which the appellant had not pressed as it was resolved by a subsequent intimation order. The assessee argued that Ground No. 1 was general and not pressed. For Ground No. 3, the assessee contended that the issue was resolved by the subsequent intimation order dated 30/03/2024, and the CIT(A) erred in adjudicating it without considering this. The revenue's representative supported the CIT(A)'s order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 139(9)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the Order, dated 25/02/2026, passed by the Commissioner Of Income Tax, Appeal - ADDL/JCIT(A)- Panaji [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] whereby the Learned CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Intimation Order, dated 08/01/2024, passed under Section 143(1) of the Income Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] for the Assessment Year 2023-2024. 2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

1.

In law and in the facts and circumstances of the Appellant case, L

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 139(9)

All 234 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(9) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →