NAVNATH DURYODHAN GOLANDE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1), KALYAN

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 28.09.2024 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2017-18, raising following grounds:

1) The Asses against the re by the CPC., review the m reflecting on t
TDS being de credit.
2) Thus, it is a properly gran
The appellant at your stage.
2. We have heard r relevant material on by the assessee was of the Income-tax Ac order, credit of cer collected at source(TC the assessee filed r seeking credit of the the updated form No TDS. But the Ld. Ass of the assessee.
2.1 On further app mistake apparent on which require any lo finally concluded as u
“The above d controversia being a con
Navna
ITA ssing Officer has erred in rejecting the ejection order u/s.154 duly passed u/s.
, be confirmed, stating the view, CPC.
matter and not give the tax effect thou the site of the CPC. on portal for tax dedu educted and the assessee eligible for s an apparent mistake on record that, tax c nted be an apparent mistake on record t not filed the revision application be co
.
rival submission of the parties a record. In the case, the return processed by the CPC and ord ct, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was rtain tax deducted at source
CS) was not granted to the asse rectification application u/s 1
relevant TDS/TCS. The assess o. 26AS in support of claim of t sessing Officer rejected the recti peal, the Ld. CIT(A) held that n the record could be rectified a ong drwan process of reasoning under:
discussion makes it clear that the iss l one and is yet to attain finality. Th ntroversial issue, this issue is beyo ath Duryodhan Golande
2
A No. 5567/MUM/2024
e appeal
143(1)(a)
Cannot ugh it is ucted and such tax credit not u/s.154. nsidered and perused the n of income filed er u/s 143(1)(a) passed. In said e(TDS) and tax essee. Therefore,
154 of the Act see filed copy of the credit of the ification request t u/s 154 only and not an issue
. The Ld. CIT(A) sue is a herefore, ond the ambit of pro courts of la controversia
Act, as the apparent on interfering w
2.2 We find that th credit in respect of t grant credit of TDS a is no controversy tha
No. 26AS i.e. the TD from the tax deducto section 154 of the Ac finding of the Ld. C restored back to the claim of the assessee allow in accordance w are accordingly allow
3. In the result, th
Order pronoun (RAHUL CHA
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 21/01/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
Navna
ITA ovisions of section 154 of the Act.
aw have time and again held th l issue cannot be entertained u/s 15
e same cannot be stated to be "
n record". Therefore, there is no s with the Order and it is upheld.”
he assessee was seeking rectific two parties. The only plea of th as per the form No. 26AS. In ou at the tax credit has to be gran
DS credit which is verified by t ors and the issue falls within th ct i.e. rectification. Accordingly, w
CIT(A) on the issue-in-dispute.
e Ld. Assessing Officer for ver e for credit of TDS as per Form with law. The grounds of appeal wed.
he appeal of the assessee is allow ced in the open Court on 21/0 AUDHARY)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

ath Duryodhan Golande
3
A No. 5567/MUM/2024
Various hat any 54 of the "mistake scope in cation of the tax he assessee is to ur opinion, there nted as per form the Department he parameters of we set aside the . The matter is rification of the m No. 26AS and l of the assessee wed.
01/2025. d/-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER

////

Navna
ITA

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu ath Duryodhan Golande
4
A No. 5567/MUM/2024
R, gistrar) umbai