DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. BEST AGROLIFE LIMITED, NEW DELHI

ITA 4024/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 April 2025AY 2022-234 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal considered the submissions of the Ld. DR and the findings of the Ld. JCIT(A). It was observed that the Ld. JCIT(A) had analyzed the relevant documents submitted by the assessee concerning the claim of tax deducted at source. The first appellate authority found that the credit of TDS claimed by the assessee was proper. The Tribunal noted that the first appellate authority possesses co-terminus powers and can choose to ask for a report, remand the matter to the AO, or decide the issue based on the material available on record. After considering the findings of the Ld. JCIT(A), the Tribunal found no reason to disturb them. Consequently, the grounds taken by the Revenue were dismissed. The specific issue of whether Rule 46A was contravened by accepting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity was implicitly decided in favor of the assessee by upholding the JCIT(A)'s order.

What were the facts?

The Revenue (DCIT, New Delhi) has filed an appeal against the order of the Learned Addl./JCIT (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad/National Faceless Appeal Centre, dated 30.06.2024, for Assessment Year 2022-23. The assessee, Best Agrolife Limited, had filed an appeal before the JCIT(A) against an intimation order passed under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which raised a total demand of Rs.34,98,65,080/-. The assessee's grievance was the non-grant of credit for TDS 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. The JCIT(A) considered detailed submissions and documentary evidence from the assessee and granted relief. The Revenue's appeal challenges the JCIT(A)'s decision.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in adjudicating the matter by allowing TDS, TCS, self-assessment tax, and advance tax credits without providing an opportunity to the Assessing Officer or CPC, Bengaluru, contravening Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, as per the ITAT Hyderabad judgment in ITA No. 586/Hyd/2022 (DCIT Vs. Mrs. Nandita Pathak)? (Question of law and fact, concerning Rule 46A). 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in granting tax credits without considering that the assessee's PAN was marked under a suspicious PAN category by CPC, Bengaluru, based on a letter from CPC-TDS? (Question of fact, concerning PAN status). 3. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing credit of TDS of Rs.1,04,34,984/- claimed by the assessee? (Question of fact, concerning TDS credit). 4. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing credit of TCS of Rs.7,70,168/- claimed by the assessee? (Question of fact, concerning TCS credit). 5. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing credit of advance tax payment of Rs.22,64,26,400/- claimed by the assessee? (Question of fact, concerning advance tax credit). 6. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing credit of self-assessment tax payment of Rs.8,01,00,000/- claimed by the assessee? (Question of fact, concerning self-assessment tax credit). Assessee's Contentions: None appeared for the assessee. Revenue's Contentions: The Ld. DR argued that the Ld. JCIT(A) accepted additional evidence under Rule 46A without giving an opportunity to the AO. The Revenue agreed that the assessee filed detailed submissions and documentary evidence before the Ld. JCIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Respondent: Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR

Hearing: 15.04.2025

(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.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →