Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, a Multi State Cooperative Society, declared income and claimed TDS credit. The CPC processed the return under Section 143(1) and allowed TDS credit proportionate to the declared turnover, disallowing a part of the claim. The assessee contended that this TDS was deducted twice on the same transaction under different sections of the Act.
Held
The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument that the TDS was deducted twice on the same sale transaction under different provisions of the Act. The Tribunal held that the reduction of TDS credit by the CPC was not justified.
Key Issues
Whether the disallowance of TDS credit by the CPC is justified when TDS was deducted twice on the same transaction under different provisions of the Income Tax Act.
Sections Cited
143(1), 194-O, 194Q
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI MANISH BORAD & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessment Year : 2023-24 Nature Delight Multi State Vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Pune. Co-operative Dairy & Agro Products Limited, Gate No.1189, Nature Delight, A/P- Kalas, Tal- Indapur- 413105. PAN : AAHAN9155F Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue by : Shri Harshit Bari Date of hearing : 20.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 31.10.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.03.2025 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Raipur [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2023-24.
Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a Multi State Cooperative Society u/s 7 of Multi State Cooperatives Societies Act, 2002 and is engaged in business of dairy which deals in milk and milk products and its distribution. Return of income was furnished on 09.09.2023 declaring total income of Rs.8,60,430/- and TDS of Rs.22,62,226/- was claimed. Vide order dated 12.01.2024, the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act & CPC gave credit of TDS of Rs.19,63,053/- only, which is proportionate to the turnover declared in the books of accounts. As per Form 26AS, the turnover of the assessee was Rs.95,46,60,639/- on which TDS of Rs.22,62,239/- was deducted. However, the assessee in his books of accounts declared turnover of only Rs.82,84,04,801/- and therefore, CPC gave credit of TDS of Rs.19,63,053/- which is proportionate to the turnover of Rs.82,84,04,801/-. Accordingly, CPC disallowed the credit of TDS of Rs.2,99,186/-.
Being aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). After considering the reply, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Ld. AR appearing from the side of the assessee submitted before us that the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is unjustified. Ld. AR submitted that the assessee cooperative society sold goods to various parities through National Cooperative Diary Federation of India Limited (‘NCDFI’) which has deducted TDS u/s 194-O as e-commerce operator and on same transaction the other parties (purchasers) have also deducted TDS u/s 194Q which resulted in double TDS on the same sale transaction which ultimately prevented the appellant to match gross receipt as per Form 26AS since the same sale transaction was appearing twice in Form 26AS. Accordingly, Ld. AR submitted that the same sale transaction was subjected to two TDS under two different provisions of the Act and that particular sale transaction was reflected in the books of accounts only as a single transaction, however in Form 26AS it was appearing twice and for this reason alone CPC did not allow the proportionate TDS of Rs.2,99,186/-. Accordingly, Ld. AR requested before the Bench to allow the credit of TDS of Rs.2,99,186/- which was earlier disallowed by the CPC.
Ld. DR appearing from the side of the Revenue relied on the orders passed by the subordinate authorities and requested to confirm the same.
7. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the side and perused the material available on record including the paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that the assessee cooperative society used to sell some part of its sale through NCDFI and NCDFI has deducted TDS u/s 194-O of the Act and the other parties who are purchasing the goods have also deducted TDS u/s 194Q of the Act on the same transaction and both the TDS along with their related turnover were appearing in Form 26AS. According to CPC, both the TDS were deducted on separate transaction, however as per the assessee it is a single sale transaction attracting TDS under two different provisions of the Act. Accordingly, we find force in the above arguments of Ld. counsel of the assessee that reduction of credit of TDS by CPC is not justified.
Considering the totality of the facts of the case & in view of our above discussion, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) & remand the matter to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to verify the contention of the assessee in this regard & to allow the remaining credit of TDS as per law. Thus the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are partly allowed.