ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. ACQUEON TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1805/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 October 2025AY 2009-106 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the rival submissions and the material on record. The sole issue was the justification of the CIT(A)'s direction to grant TDS credit of Rs.75,64,754/-. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had originally claimed TDS credit of Rs.2,04,74,986/-, which was allowed by the AO. During the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), an additional claim for TDS credit based on Form 26AS was made and accepted. The Tribunal found it unclear why the assessee had initially restricted its claim when Form 26AS showed a higher amount. Therefore, the Tribunal restored the matter to the file of the AO for the limited purpose of verifying the correctness of the differential TDS amount of Rs.75,64,754/-. The assessee was directed to furnish a reconciliation statement. If the AO was satisfied with the explanation for the additional TDS claim, it would be granted in accordance with law. The grounds raised by the Revenue were allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The Revenue is in appeal against the order of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2009-10. The assessee, a software development company, filed its return declaring a loss. The AO completed the assessment under Section 143(3) making additions. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A). Subsequently, the assessee filed a further appeal to the ITAT against the CIT(A)'s order. The ITAT, by order dated 20.11.2020, allowed the claim for software licenses and remitted the issue of delayed PF remittance to the AO. The AO passed an order on 20.12.2020, confirming the addition for delayed PF remittance. The CIT(A) then confirmed this addition but directed the AO to grant credit for TDS as per Form 26AS, which was Rs.2,80,39,740/-, while the AO had granted credit only for Rs.2,04,74,986/-, resulting in a short credit of Rs.75,64,754/-. The Revenue's appeal is against this direction of the CIT(A) regarding the TDS credit.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in allowing a fresh claim for TDS credit not emanating from the assessment order, in violation of Rule 46A? - Revenue's contention: The CIT(A) erred in allowing a fresh claim for TDS credit of Rs.75,64,754/- which was not part of the assessment order and violated Rule 46A by not calling for a remand report from the AO. The Revenue prayed for the issue to be remitted back to the AO. - Assessee's contention: The CIT(A) did not violate Rule 46A by granting relief based on Form 26AS, as this information is available on the Income Tax Department's portal. 2. Whether the CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to grant credit for TDS as per Form 26AS without verifying the corresponding income offered by the assessee? - Revenue's contention: The CIT(A) failed to verify if the corresponding income was offered by the assessee and blanketly allowed the appeal by directing the AO to allow TDS credit as per Form 26AS. The Revenue prayed for the AO's order to be restored. - Assessee's contention: Not recorded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 254,Section 46A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K & SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 04.09.2025Pronounced: 23.10.2025

आदेश /O R D E R

PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 22.05.2024 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai [hereinafter referred to as the “ld.CIT(A)”], arising out of the order dated 20.11.2020 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,

:-2-: ITA. No:1805/Chny/2024 Corporate Circle-6(1), Chennai [hereinafter referred to as the “AO”], u/s.143(3) r.w.s 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “the Act”], in relation to the Assessment Year 2009-10.

2.

The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee on the grounds which were not emanating from the order that was appealed against.

3. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in allowing the fresh claim that has been made at the appellate stage without any basis. 4. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have remitted the issue to the AO to verify the documentary evidences stated to have been verified by the Ld.CIT(A) and hence the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in not affording opportunity to the AO which is in violation of Rule 46A. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) has failed to verify and give a finding on whether the corresponding income was offered by the assessee and allow the TDS credit accordingly and has been blanketly allowed the appeal of the assessee by directing the AO to allow credit for taxes paid as per Form 26AS. 6. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the learned CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer restored.

3.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of software development. For the impugned assessment year, the assessee filed its return of income on 28.09.2009 declaring a total loss of Rs.10,91,70,655/-. The case was selected for scrutiny assessment and completed by the AO u/s.143(3) of the Act on 22.03.2013 making various additions including claim for purchase of software licenses and delay remittance of employee’s contribution to PF. Aggrieved, assessee carried

:-3-: ITA. No:1805/Chny/2024 the matter before the first appellate authority who was pleased to give certain relief. Assessee preferred further appeal before this Tribunal against the said appellate order. This Tribunal vide order dated 20.11.2020 allowed the claim of the assessee on account of addition made towards purchase of software licence and in respect of delayed remittance of employees’ contribution towards PF amounting to Rs.84,30,994/- the issue has remitted back to the file of the AO to verify whether the remittances were made before the due date for filing the return of income.

4.

Pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal, the AO passed an order dated 20.12.2020 without giving any relief on account of delayed remittances of employees’ contribution to PF stating that no details were furnished by the assessee. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who vide the impugned order dated 22.05.2024 confirmed the addition on account of delayed remittances of employees’ contribution to PF relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services P. Ltd v. CIT. Further, the ld.CIT(A) observed that the credit for TDS as appearing in Form 26AS of the assessee was Rs.2,80,39,740/-, whereas AO has granted credit only for an amount of Rs.2,04,74,986/- resulting in short credit of Rs.75,64,754/-. The ld.CIT(A), thus directed the AO to grant credit for TDS of Rs.2,80,39,740/- as

per Form 26AS of the assessee.

5.

Against the relief given by the ld.CIT(A) relating to grant of short credit of TDS of Rs.75,64,754/-, Revenue has preferred the appeal before this Tribunal.

:-4-: ITA. No:1805/Chny/2024 The case was originally heard on 01.10.2024 and this Tribunal has passed an order on 09.10.2024 allowing the appeal of the Revenue without hearing the assessee. On Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee in M.A.No.44/Chny/2025, the matter has been recalled by this Tribunal vide order dated 22.07.2025 and accordingly the Registry has posted the case of hearing and it was heard by us.

6.

The ld.DR for the Revenue submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to grant credit for shortfall of TDS of Rs.75,64,754/- though the same was not emanating from the impugned assessment order passed pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal. Further, there is a gross violation of Rule 46A of the Income tax Rules by the ld.CIT(A) in not calling for remand report from the AO while confirming the additional claim of TDS as eligible by the assessee and directing the AO to grant the credit of the same. Hence, the ld.DR prayed for remitting the issue back to the file of the AO to verify the credit for TDS and corresponding income by setting aside the order of the ld.CIT(A).

7.

Per contra, the ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has granted the relief for TDS based on the Form 26AS which according to him is not a violation of Rule 46A, since the same is available in the portal of the Income Tax Department.

8.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions, perused the orders of the lower authorities, and examined the material available on record, including the paper book submitted by the assessee. The sole issue arising for :-5-: ITA. No:1805/Chny/2024 adjudication pertains to the justification of the action of the ld.CIT(A) in directing the AO to grant credit for TDS amounting to Rs.75,64,754/-.

9.

We observe that in the original return of income, the assessee had claimed TDS credit of Rs.2,04,74,986/-, which was duly allowed by the AO while passing the order giving effect to the directions of this Tribunal. During the course of appellate proceedings before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee raised an additional claim for TDS credit based on the details available in Form 26AS, which was accepted by the ld.CIT(A), who accordingly directed the AO to allow credit for TDS as per Form 26AS. However, it remains unclear why the assessee had originally restricted its claim to Rs.2,04,74,986/-, when the total TDS reflected in Form 26AS is Rs.2,80,39,740/-, thereby leaving a differential amount of Rs.75,64,754/-.

10.

In view of the above, we consider it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the AO for the limited purpose of verifying the correctness of differential TDS amount of Rs.75,64,754/-. The assessee is directed to furnish before the AO a reconciliation statement clearly demonstrating the TDS claimed in the return of income and the amount of TDS reflected in Form 26AS. In the event the AO is satisfied that the explanations furnished along with the reconciliation by the assessee for such corresponding additional amount of TDS of Rs.75,64,754/- claimed by the assessee, shall be granted the same in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.

:-6-: ITA. No:1805/Chny/2024

11.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the court on 23rd October, 2025 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 46A

All 520 judgments and leading authorities on Section 46A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →