Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN
(Assessment Year: 2022-23) DCIT, vs. Best Agrolife Limited, New Delhi. S – 1A, Ground Floor, Bhagwan Dass Nagar, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi – 110 026. (PAN : AAACS0225L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 15.04.2025 Date of Order : 15.04.2025 ORDER
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Addl./JCIT (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad/National Faceless Appeal Centre, [“Ld. JCIT(A)”, for short] dated 30.06.2024 for the Assessment Year 2022-23 raising following grounds of appeal :-
1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred for adjudicating the matter on allowing the TDS, TCS, self-assessment tax and advance tax credits without providing an opportunity to the Assessing Officer CPC, Bengaluru, which is in contravention of provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 as per the judgement by Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad in in the matter of DCIT Vs. Mrs. Nandita Pathak.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in giving tax credits without considering the fact that the PAN of the assessee was marked under suspicious PAN category by CPC, Bengaluru based on letter received from CPC-TDS.
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing credit of TDS of Rs.1,04,34,984 /- w.r.t. the of Rs.1,04,34,984 /- claimed by the assessee in its ITR for relevant AY.
4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing credit of TCS of Rs.7,70,168/- w.r.t. the TCS of Rs.7,70,168/- claimed by the assessee in its ITR for relevant AY.
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing credit of advance tax payment of Rs.22,64,26,400/- w.r.t. claim of the same by the assessee in its ITR for relevant AY.
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing credit of self- assessment tax payment of Rs.8,01,00,000/- w.r.t. claim of the same by the assessee in its ITR for relevant AY.
That the order of Ld.CIT(A) is perverse, erroneous and is not tenable on facts and in law.
That the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.”
None attended for the assessee. As per the record, two RPAD notices were issued but none appeared on behalf of the assessee. We proceeded to hear the case with the assistance of Ld. DR of the Revenue.
3. At the time of hearing, ld. DR brought to our notice relevant facts on record that assessee has filed appeal against the intimation order passed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) before the JCIT(A), Hyderabad. Ld. JCIT (A) dealt with the issue raised by the assessee that intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act was passed making a total demand of Rs.34,98,65,080/- without granting opportunity to the assessee that the AO has not granted credit of tax deducted at source amounting to Rs.1,04,34,984/-, non-grant of TDS of Rs.7,70,168 and non-grant of TDS amounting to Rs.30,65,26,400/- without assigning any reason. Ld. DR agreed that the assessee has filed detailed submissions and also documentary evidences before ld. JCIT (A) in the appeal proceedings. After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee and after due verification of the claim of the assessee, ld. JCIT (A) granted relief to the assessee. However, he argued that ld. JCIT (A) has accepted the additional evidences submitted by the assessee under Rule 46A without giving opportunity to the AO.
Considered the submissions of the ld. DR of the Revenue and relevant findings of ld. JCIT (A). We observed that ld. JCIT (A) has analysed the relevant documents submitted by the assessee on the claim of tax deducted at source. He found that the credit of TDS claimed by the assessee is proper and after analyzing the various documents available on record, he has granted the relief to the assessee and also first appellate authority has co-terminus powers and he may choose to ask for the report or remand the matter to the AO or he may decide the issue as per the material available on record. After considering the findings of ld. JCIT(A), we do not see any reason to disturb the findings and accordingly, the grounds taken by the Revenue are dismissed.