PDK INTERNATIONAL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD 8(3), KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
‘SMC’ BENCH KOLKATA

Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member and Shri Sanjay Awasthi, Accountant Member

I.T.A. No.2393/Kol/2024
Assessment Year: 2013-14

PDK International Pvt. Ltd..…………………....…………………....Appellant
8/1, Middleton Row, Kol-71. [PAN: AABCP5263C]
vs.
ITO, Ward-8(2), Kolkata..……………....…..………………….…..... Respondent

Appearances by:
Shri Amit Agrawal, Adv., CA, appeared on behalf of the appellant.
Smt. Pampa Ray, JCIT, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

Date of concluding the hearing : November 04, 2025
Date of pronouncing the order : November 12, 2025

आदेश / ORDER
Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC (hereinafter referred to as “ld. CIT(A)”) dated 30.09.2024
passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).
2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company and filed its return of income for the assessment year 2013-14 declaring total income of Rs.15,71,350/-. The return was selected for scrutiny under CASS. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee had claimed a TDS credit of Rs.50,748/- on payments made u/s 194C of the Act by M/s Rourkela Steel Plant. The Assessing Officer observed that while the assessee claimed TDS in return of income but no corresponding income under the head
‘contractual income’ had been declared. The Assessing Officer issued a show-cause notice and in response, the assessee explained that they had received Rs.6,37,000/- and Rs.19,00,386/- during the F.Y 2012-13

I.T.A. No.2393/Kol/2024
PDK International Pvt. Ltd

2
and these receipts were credited to the account of M/s RSP Projects and treated as reimbursement of expenditures. The Assessing Officer found that the assessee had not recorded these receipts as income in P&L
A/c. Therefore, the Assessing Officer determined that the assessee was not justified in claiming
TDS credit without recognizing the corresponding income and completed the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act making an addition of Rs.25,37,386/- as income from contract receipts.
3. Aggrieved by the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the submission made by the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee by upholding the order of the Assessing Officer.
4. Dissatisfied with the above order, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal raising various grounds. However, the contention of the assessee is that the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) is bad in law since the assessee credited the amount to M/s
Rourkela
Steel
Plant treating the same as reimbursement of the expenditure, therefore, it is neither a receipt nor expenditure incurred as belief by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, it is not treated as income and expenditure of the assessee. He further stated that mere deduction of TDS does not make any receipt of taxable income and cited judgments of various decisions rendered by the Hon’ble High Courts in this context. The ld. AR further stated that in this connection, the auditor of the assessee also issued a certificate dated 21.11.2015 duly placed before the Assessing Officer stating the fact that the alleged receipts were duly accounted for in the books of account of the said company as amounts were in the nature of reimbursement of expenditure incurred by the company. Therefore, the alleged amount was not in the nature of revenue from business operation as such it cannot be treated as revenue from the operation of I.T.A. No.2393/Kol/2024
PDK International Pvt. Ltd

3
the assessee. The relevant extract of the said certificate issued by Chartered Accountant is hereunder:

I.T.A. No.2393/Kol/2024
PDK International Pvt. Ltd

I.T.A. No.2393/Kol/2024
PDK International Pvt. Ltd

5
6. We, after hearing the rival submissions and perusing the materials available on record, find that in the present case of the assessee, although TDS was deducted but mere deduction of TDS does not make any receipt as taxable income as held by Hon’ble Delhi High
Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s Relcom in ITA 26/2015. Since the assessee has categorically stated that the assessee company credited the amount to the accounts of M/s Rourkela Steel Plant for the said receipts treating the same as reimbursement of the expenditure.
Therefore, it cannot be said to be treated as income for the assessment year in question. Considering the issues involved in the appeal and following the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the cited case, we hereby set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made in the case of the assessee.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Kolkata, the 12th November, 2025. [Sanjay Awasthi]

[Sonjoy Sarma]
लेखा सदèय/Accountant Member

ÛयाǓयक सदèय/Judicial Member

Dated: 12.11.2025. RS

Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. Appellant -
2. Respondent -
3.CIT (A)-
4. CIT- ,

////
By order