MANJU DEVI MUNDRA,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, SRIGANGANAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 678/JODH/2026Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur27 October 2026AY 2022-20236 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the JCIT(A) and CPC erred in not allowing the full credit of TDS amounting to ₹99,850/-. The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a 'Kaccha Arhatia' acting as a middleman, and as per CBDT Circular No. 452 dated March 17, 1986, such agents act only as agents of their constituents and not as principals. The Tribunal found that the JCIT(A) had not appreciated the facts correctly. Following the decisions of coordinate benches in similar cases and in light of CBDT Circular No. 452 of 1986, the Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer (AO) to examine and verify the contents of Form 26AS at the time of giving appeal effect and grant credit for the TDS mismatch, if any, to the appellant, subject to the provisions of Section 199 of the Income Tax Act and Rule 37BA of the Income Tax Rules. The AO was instructed to verify total receipts in Form 26AS and ITR and give TDS credit if the corresponding income was offered for taxation by the assessee, the Kachha Adatiya, or its principal in the relevant year. The appeal of the assessee was accordingly allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Manju Devi Mundra, is appealing an order dated January 30, 2026, passed by the JCIT(A). The appeal was filed with a delay of 21 days, which was condoned by the Tribunal. The assessee, a commission agent in a krishi mandi, filed her return of income for Assessment Year 2022-23, declaring an income of Rs. 4,23,820/- and claiming TDS of Rs. 99,850/-. The assessee contended that TDS was deducted on total payments, whereas her income was only commission, leading to a discrepancy between Form 26AS TDS details and her declared commission income. The CPC initially allowed a lesser TDS credit of Rs. 51,360/-. Following an application under Section 154, the CPC reduced the TDS credit further to Rs. 49,660/-, creating a demand of Rs. 1,700/-. The appeal to the JCIT(A) was dismissed, leading to the present appeal before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Tribunal had to decide if the JCIT(A) and CPC erred in not allowing the full credit of TDS amounting to ₹99,850/- as reflected in Form 26AS, contrary to the assessee's claim, turning on the interpretation of TDS credit provisions and the nature of the assessee's business. Assessee's contentions: - The JCIT(A) and CPC erroneously disallowed the TDS claim of Rs. 99,850/- available in Form 26AS. - Relying on Circular No. 452 dated March 17, 1986, sales made for a principal are not included in the agent's turnover, thus the declared turnover is correct and eligible for TDS benefits as per Form 26AS. - The actions of the CPC and JCIT(A) are unjustified and against CBDT circulars. - The issue has been decided by a Coordinate Bench in similar cases like Rajender Kumar Legha, Brijesh Kumar Agni (HUF), Amrit Lal Jain, and Ratnesh Garg. Revenue's contentions: - The Ld. DR relied upon the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194Q,Section 154,Section 199,Section 37BA

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Chopra, Advocate (Virtually)
For Respondent: Ms. Prerna Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SMT ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 678/Jodh/2026 (Assessment Year – 2022-23) MANJU DEVI MUNDRA INCOME TAX OFFICER, Ward No Shop No. 10, New Dhan Mandi, 1, Sriganganagar Raisinghnagar, Sriganganagar 335051 PAN No. AJDPM 4818 Q Assessee by Shri P.M. Chopra, Advocate (Virtually) Revenue by Ms. Prerna Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR (Through V.C.) Date of Hearing 14 / 09 / 2026. Date of Pronouncement 27 / 10 / 2026.

ORDER PER SUDHIR PAREEK, JUDICIAL MEMBER The aforetitled appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the order dated 30th January 2026 passed by Officer of Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Addl/JCIT (A)-2 Raipur [for the sake of convenience, hereinafter referred to as JCIT(A)].

2.

We noticed that the present appeal filed, is delayed by 21 days and for which, the appellant has filed an application for condonation of delay explaining reasonable and sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the

2 ITA No. 678/Jodh/2026 Asst. Year: 2022-23 prescribed period. Having considered the contents of the condonation petition and finding no mala fide intent on the part of the appellant, we are satisfied that there was sufficient cause for the minor delay of 21 days. In the interest of substantial justice, the delay of 21 days is hereby condoned, and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits.

2A. Facts of the case may be narrated, as asserted by the appellant, that the she is doing the business of commission agent in krishi mandi, filed her return of income of Rs. 423820/- and claimed TDS of Rs. 99850/- and TDS was deducted on total payment whereas the income of the appellant is only commission, not entire receipts and so there shall be difference in the amount of receipts as per Form 26AS, TDS details and the amount shown as commission income by the appellant. The CPC allowed lesser TDS of Rs. 51360/- in place of total actual TDS of Rs. 99850/-, which is available in Form 26AS also, so the appellant filed application u/s 154 of the Act for reprocess of return due to mismatch in credit of TDS and the CPC reduced the credit of TDS to Rs. 49660/- and the mistake committed in original order dated 21-02-2023 is apparent from record and rectifiable , but not rectified and also created the demand of Rs. 1700/- and issue raised before the Learned CIT(A), but appeal dismissed, hence this appeal.

3 ITA No. 678/Jodh/2026 Asst. Year: 2022-23 3. The assessee has raised various grounds of appeal, primarily challenging the action of the Ld. CPC as well as the Ld. JCIT(A) in not allowing the credit of TDS amounting to ₹99,850/-, which, according to the assessee, is duly reflected in Form No. 26AS.

4.

Reiterating the grounds of appeal, the Ld. AR expressed grievance that the Ld. CPC as well as Ld. JCIT(A) erroneously disallowed the claim of TDS of Rs. 99,850/- deducted under Section 194Q which is available in form 26AS and denied the eligibility of the assessee. It is also submitted that as per circular no. 452 dated 17.03.1986 the sales made for his principle is not included in the turnover of the agent, hence the turnover declared by the assessee is correct and also eligible for the benefit of TDS as available in form 26AS, therefore, the act of the Ld. CPC and Ld. JCIT(A) is unjustified and against the circular of CBDT.

5.

It is submitted that the order passed by Ld. JCIT(A) deserves to be set aside as issue involved in this appeal has already been decided by Coordinate Bench of Jodhpur in the case of Rajender Kumar Legha ITA No. 1038/Jodh/2025 given as under:

“The Ld. AR also submitted that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be set aside as issue involved in this appeal has already been decided by coordinate bench in the case of Brijesh Kumar Agni (HUF) Vs. ITA in ITA No. 534/Jodh/2024 vide order dated 07.01.2026 in which coordinate observed as under:-

4 ITA No. 678/Jodh/2026 Asst. Year: 2022-23 On an identical issue and parity of fact, in the case of Amrit Lal Jain Vs. ITO in ITA No. 627/Jodh/2024 for Assessment Year 2023-24 the bench has pronounced an order in Sept. 2025 by following its own judgement delivered in the case of Ratnesh Garg Vs. ITO, in ITA No. 589/Jodh/2024 for the Assessment Year 2022-23 wherein the coordinate bench has observed as under: Having heard both the sides and perusal of record, we find that AO/CPC has not allowed the full claim of the TDS due to the mismatch of total receipt in ITR and Form-26AS. In this respect, appellant in his submission before Ld. CIT(A) and before us has submitted that he is a "Kaccha Arhatia" registered with Rajasthan Krishi Upaj Mandi and works as a middleman. As per the Circular No. 452(F.No. 201/3/85-/T(A- //)], dated 17.03.1986) the aforesaid Kaccha Arhatia acts only as an agent of his constituent and never acts as a principal. The JCIT(A) has not appreciated the facts of the case in right perspective. Considering the peculiar facts of the present cases, the matter is required to be restored to the AO for limited purpose with the direction to examine the contents of the Form 26AS at the time of giving appeal effect and give credit of TDS mismatch claimed subject to provision of section 199 of the I. T. Act and rule 37BA of the I. T. Rules. Thus, the AO has to verify the total receipts shown in 26AS and ITR and give credit of TDS to the appellant if the corresponding income has been offered either by the assessee, the Kachha Adatiya or its principle by for taxation in his income tax return in the relevant year after due verification. Without prejuaice to above, it is pertinent to mention that appellant is being a kachha arahtia involved in selling crops on behalf of farmers and therefore, only gross commission has to be considered for the purpose of computing the turnover in the light of aforementioned CBDT Circular 452 of 1986 dated 17.03.1986 while computing tax liability. It is clarified that the short credit of TDS granted in respect of TDS deducted against his own is dependent upon the filing of TDS statement by the deductor as mandated u/s 19 and rule 37BA(1). If there is any mismatch in the TDS claim as per the return vis-a-vis the TDS statement filed by the deductor. The assessee has been allowed due liberty by the LD. JCIT(A) that the TDS statement can be rectified by getting appropriate corrected TDS statement issued filed by the deductor. Considering the factual matrix of the case and the CBDT Circular 452 of 1986 dated 17.03.1986, we direct the AO to examine and verify the contents of the Form 26AS at the time of giving appeal effect and give credit of TDS mismatch if any, to the appellant assesses.”

5 ITA No. 678/Jodh/2026 Asst. Year: 2022-23 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).

7.

In totality of the circumstances and on the basis of submissions advanced on behalf of appellant/assessee and following the coordinate bench decision as well as the CBDT circular 452 of 1986 dated 17.03.1986, we direct the Learned AO to examine and verify the contents of the Form 26AS at the time of giving appeal effect and give credit of TDS mismatch if any, to the appellant and accordingly, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be allowed.

8.

Consequently, this appeal is hereby allowed as indicated above.

Order pronounced in Open Court on 27/10/2026

Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SUDHIR PAREEK) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 27/ 10/ 2026. Nimisha, Sr. PS True Copy

6 ITA No. 678/Jodh/2026 Asst. Year: 2022-23

Copies to : (1) The appellant. (2) The respondent. (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File

BY ORDER, NIMISHA Digitally signed by NIMISHA ARORA ARORA Date: 2026.10.28 10:50:08 +05'30' Sr. Private Secretary ITAT Jodhpur Bench

More judgments on Section 194Q

All 123 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194Q →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →