TARADEVI JYOTI KUMAR BUBNA,MUMBAI vs. DCIT(CPC), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the matter required factual verification regarding the dual PANs and the credit for advance tax and TDS. Therefore, the issue was remanded to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed credit for advance tax and TDS, which was not given in the intimation under Section 143(1). Despite multiple rectification applications and pointing out the payments were reflected in Form 26AS and the issue of dual PANs, the tax authorities did not grant the credit.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was entitled to credit for advance tax and TDS payments that were not reflected in the initial intimation and subsequent rectification orders. The issue of dual PANs also contributed to the dispute.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘E‘ BENCH
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI M.BALAGANESH
आदेश / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH (A.M):
This appeal in A.Y.2015-16 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in appeal No.CIT(A), Mumbai- 29/10770/2016-17 dated 16/03/2021 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated 12/12/2016 by the ld. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (CPC) (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).
M/s. Taradevi Jyoti Kumar Bubna
The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A) was justified in not directing the DCIT, CPC, Bangalore to give credit of advance tax paid of Rs.30,000/- by the assessee and TDS credit of Rs.6,083/- claimed by the assessee in the facts and circumstances of the case.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We have heard ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. We find that assessee is an individual deriving income from partnership firms and income from other sources. The return of income for the A.Y. 2015-16 was filed by the assessee on 08/08/2015 declaring total income of Rs.6,67,780/-. The assessee paid taxes by way of advance tax, TDS and self-assessment tax. This return was duly processed by CPC Bangalore under intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act was passed on 31/01/2016 raising demand of Rs.36,080/-. In the said intimation, credit of advance tax paid of Rs.30,00/- and TDS credit of Rs.6,083/- was not given to the assessee. Against the said intimation, the assessee filed rectification electronically on 05/08/2016 before the CPC, Bangalore. In response, the assessee received rectification order dated 19/08/2016 reiterating the earlier intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act. The assessee filed further rectification on 19/11/2016 before the CPC Bangalore and in response, the assessee received rectification order dated 12/12/2016 reiterating the earlier intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act. The assessee pointed out that he was allotted two Permanent Account Numbers (PANs) viz., AAJPB6138P and AIKPB8450D. The assessee did file a letter before the ld. AO seeking cancellation of one PAN. The assessee also pointed out that both advance tax payment of Rs.30,000/- and TDS credit of Rs.6,083/- had been duly reflected in Form No.26AS of the assessee and there was absolutely no M/s. Taradevi Jyoti Kumar Bubna income that had escaped assessment in the hands of the assessee in this regard. All these contentions were not appreciated by the ld. CIT(A) and appeal was dismissed.
3.1. We find that this matter requires factual verification by the ld. AO and one of the PAN of the assessee should be cancelled by the Income Tax department and credit for advance tax and TDS should be granted to the assessee as per law. Hence, we deem it fit to remand this issue to the file of the ld. AO for denovo adjudication. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open Court on 13/07/2022
More judgments on Section 154
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Rakesh Kumar Malani, JaipurITA 1425/JPR/2026[2025-26]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2025-26
- Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs Anita Sharma, JaipurITA 1344/JPR/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Ramtirath Bawa, Nagpur vs ITO Ward3(4), NagpurITA 327/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Mohinder Singh, Nagpur vs ITO Ward 3(4), NagpurITA 322/NAG/2026[2015-16]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Ramakrishna Reddy Makireddy, Hyderabad vs ACIT, Circle-5(1), HyderabadITA 70/HYD/2026[2007-08]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2007-08
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026