DCIT(IT) - 2(2)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. EBAY INTERNATIONAL AG, MUMBAI

The grounds rai 1. Whether on law the Ld. C the additiona 2. Whether on law the Ld.CI 30.03.2021 w or application TDS of Rs. 2,2 3. Whether on law the Ld. C AO as to the applicable to 3. We have carefu both parties and hav primary issue for our for additional credit o Rs. 2,28,36,127/- co proceedings. The as sought credit for the Officer rejected the c in the original return Officer was of the vie assessee was either time or to seek rel 119(2)(b) of the Act consideration, directe ITA ised by the Revenue are reprodu n the facts and circumstances of the cas CIT(A) erred to directed the A.O to verify a l TDS credit of Rs. 2,28,36,127/-. n the facts and circumstances of the cas IT(A) erred to consider the assessee's lett wherein the assessee had not filed revise n u/s 119(2)(b) of • the Act for claiming ad 28,36, 127/-• n the facts and circumstances of the cas CIT(A) erred not to consider the adjudicati provisions of section 155(14) of the Act the assessee. ully considered the submission ve perused the relevant material r consideration is whether the a of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS uld be entertained in the course ssessee, through its rectificati aforesaid TDS amount. Howeve claim on the ground that it had n of income filed by the assessee ew that the appropriate course o to file a revised return within lief by way of an application . Upon appeal, the learned C ed the Assessing Officer to verif Ebay International AG 2 A No. 5705/MUM/2024 uced as under: se and in and grant se and in ter dated ed return dditional se and in ion of the t are not ns advanced by l on record. The assessee's claim S) amounting to e of rectification ion application, er, the Assessing d not been made e. The Assessing of action for the n the prescribed n under section IT(A), after due fy the claim and allow the TDS cred finding of the Ld. CIT “23. Accordin additional TD law. Ground N for statistical 4. In our opinion, dispute is well reaso and allow in accord learned CIT(A) is in justice. The mere fac return cannot, by its TDS if the assessee i tax administration i income, and any pro burden on the taxpay already been dedu government, the co assessee, subject to infirmity in the ord Assessing Officer to v We, therefore, upho Assessing Officer sha credit of TDS to the a appeal of the Revenu ITA dit in accordance with the law T(A) is reproduced as under: ngly, the A.O. is directed to verify an DS credit of Rs.2,28,36.127/- to the appe Nos. 1 to 4 of the appeal is hereby treated purpose.” the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) ned as he has only directed to ance with law. The approach n consonance with the princi ct that the claim was not made elf, be a ground to deny the leg is otherwise entitled to the sam is to ensure correct and fair ocedural lapse should not resu ayer. It is well established that w ucted at source and depos rresponding credit must be verification of facts. Accordin der of the learned CIT(A) in verify the claim and grant the cr old the said direction, empha all ensure due verification befo assessee. We order accordingly. e are accordingly dismissed. Ebay International AG 3 A No. 5705/MUM/2024 w. The relevant nd grant the ellant as per d as allowed on the issue in verify the claim adopted by the ples of natural e in the original gitimate credit of me. The object of assessment of ult in an undue where a tax has sited with the granted to the ngly, we find no n directing the redit as per law. asizing that the ore granting the The grounds of 4. In the result, ap Order pronoun (RAHUL CHA JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated: 19/02/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.