MAHESHKUMAR VITTHALBHAI VATLIYA,SURAT vs. ITO, WARD 3(3)(1), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 267/SRT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 October 2026AY 2022-233 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Form 26AS categorically reflected the TDS credit corresponding to the income, and this credit had been validly claimed by the assessee. The Tribunal noted that in the case of a co-owner of the same property, the TDS credit was granted for the same assessment year. It found that both the AO and the CIT(A) had ignored these crucial facts, including the statements in Form 26AS and the favorable treatment of the assessee's co-owners. Therefore, the Tribunal directed the AO/CPC to grant the TDS credit relating to the corresponding income. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Maheshkumar Vitthalbhai Vatliya, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) dated 09.12.2024 for Assessment Year 2022-23. The assessee had filed a return of income on 23.10.2022, which was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, resulting in an intimation order dated 27.02.2023. This order raised a demand of Rs. 63,040/- due to a discrepancy in TDS credit not offered to tax. The assessee was a co-owner of two properties sold for Rs. 1,05,00,000/-, with TDS of Rs. 1,05,000/- deducted at source and reflected in Form 26AS. The assessee claimed capital gains on the land and showed Short Term Capital Gains on the building as Nil, attributing the omission of sale consideration and purchase price for the building to a technical error. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in upholding the order dated 27.02.2023 passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is right in law and on facts in disallowing the credit of Tax Deducted at Source to the tune of Rs. 63,040/- lying to the credit of the Appellant? 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in law and on facts in denying the credit of TDS along with interest accrued thereon to the Appellant? Assessee's Contentions: The Ld. AR argued that the CIT(A) erred in not granting the additional TDS credit, especially since similar credit was allowed by the Revenue in the case of a co-owner, Hansaben Dhirubhai Vatliya, for the same assessment year, as per the CIT(A)'s order dated 23.03.2024. The Ld. AR emphasized that the TDS was clearly reflected in Form 26AS and was ignored by both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A). Revenue's Contentions: The Ld. DR relied upon the intimation order u/s 143(1) and the order of the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 139(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

Pronounced: 29.10.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.267/SRT/2025 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2022-23) MAHESHKUMAR VITTHALBHAI ITO, WARD 3(3)(1) VATLIYA AAYAKR BHAWAN, MAJURA 166/167, RAMNAGAR, GATE, NEAR ANKUR CHAR RASTA, Vs. SURAT-395001, GUJARAT A.K.ROAD, S.O.SURAT CITY, SURAT-395008, GUJARAT अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of Assessee: AFEPV1133Q

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Appellant represented by: Shri Vijay Patel, AR ��थ� �ारा/Respondent represented by: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 19.08.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 29.10.2026 O R D E R PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, J M:

The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), ADDL/JCIT (A), Delhi [in short “CIT(A)”] dated 09.12.2024 for the Assessment Year (in short “AY”) 2022- 23.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in upholding the order dated 27.02.2023 passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) is right in law and on facts in disallowing the credit of Tax Deducted at Source to the tune of Rs. 63,040/-lying to the credit of the Appellant?

ITA No.267/SRT/2025 (A.Y. 2022-23) MAHESHKUMAR VITTHALBHAI VATLIYA 3) Whether the Ld. CIT(A) was right in law and on facts in denying the credit of TDS along with interest accrued thereon to the Appellant?” 3. The assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2022-23 u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act) on 23.10.2022. The said return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act vide intimation order dated 27.02.2023 whereby a demand of Rs.63,040/- was raised in corresponding income to TDS credit which was not offered to tax. The assessee was one of the co- owners of the two properties – one is land at Nana Varaccha, Surat and the other is building at Nana Varaccha, Surat totaling to Rs.1,05,00,000/- sale consideration and only on the capital gain was claimed on land at Rs.3,88,188/-. The buyer had deducted TDS at 1% which amounts to Rs.1,05,000/- and the same was reflected in Form 26AS. In so far as the property being building Nana Varaccha, Surat, the assessee has shown Short Term Capital Gains (in short “STCG”) as Nil after deducting cost of purchase in the computation of income. The assessee submitted that due to technical error the sale consideration of the building i.e. sale consideration and purchase price was not reflected in the return of income.

4.

Being aggrieved by the intimation order u/s 143(1) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The Ld. Authorised Representative (in short “the Ld. AR”) submitted that the CIT(A) was wrong in not granting additional credit of TDS despite in the co-owner’s case the said credit was reflected and was allowed by the Revenue before the appellate authority being CIT(A)’s order u/s 250 dated 23.03.2024 in case of Hansaben Dhirubhai Vatliya for the same assessment year. The Ld. AR further submitted that the TDS is categorically reflected but these details were totally ignored by the AO as well as by the CIT(A).

ITA No.267/SRT/2025 (A.Y. 2022-23) MAHESHKUMAR VITTHALBHAI VATLIYA 6. The Ld. Departmental Representative (in short “Ld. DR”) relied upon the intimation order u/s 143(1) as well as order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that Form No.26AS has categorically reflected the corresponding income to TDS credit and has validly claimed by the assessee to that extent. In fact, in co-owner’s case of the said land the said TDS credit was granted and ignoring all these facts the AO as well as the CIT(A) ignored these statements of Form 26AS as well as the case of the assessee’s co-owners. Therefore, the AO/CPC is directed to grant the TDS credit as relates to corresponding income.

8.

In result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29.10.2026

Sd/- Sd/- (B.M. BIYANI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Surat; Dated: 29.10.2026 //True Copy// * Kishore, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT- concerned 4. DR, ITAT, Surat 5. Guard File By order, HEMA KISHORE Digitally signed by HEMA KISHORE JAKKA JAKKA Date: 2026.10.29 17:54:29 +05'30' Assistant Registrar/Sr.PS/PS ITAT, Surat Bench

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →