URMILABEN H DAVE DISC FAMILY TRUST,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 328/AHD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 May 2025AY 2022-236 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not commented on the merits of the case regarding the refund in respect of TDS credit. The rectification application filed by the assessee was neither rejected nor accepted by the Assessing Officer. The CPGRAM complaint was closed by stating the case as 'closed'. The Tribunal found it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Assessing Officer. The direction is that if the credit of TDS is in the name of the trustee, and the trust provides details of whether the money was credited to the trust's account, the same should be taken into account, and due credit should be given to the assessee trust. The appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes. The decision in ITA No. 326/Ahd/2025 for AY 2020-21 will be followed for AYs 2021-22 and 2022-23. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Urmilaben H. Dave Family Trust, filed appeals for assessment years 2020-21, 2021-22, and 2022-23 against the orders dated 31-07-2024 passed by the CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-9, Mumbai. For AY 2020-21, the assessee filed a return on 24-10-2020. The intimation u/s.143(1) was passed on 21-10-2021, not allowing TDS credit of Rs. 35,493. A rectification application u/s.154 was filed on 13-04-2023. A CPGRAM grievance was filed on 11-04-2024 and closed on 23-04-2024, rejecting the TDS claim and raising a demand of Rs. 5,470. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A) on 29-05-2024, which was dismissed for being delayed by 919 days and for not being an appealable order. The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was delayed by 104 days, which was condoned.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the appeal was filed late and not condoning the delay, when the assessee contended it was filed in time (appeal filed on 29/05/2024 against rejection on 23/04/2024, received on 30/04/2024)? This issue turns on the interpretation of limitation periods and the nature of the order being appealed. 2. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in not granting credit of TDS amounting to Rs. 35,493 (for AY 2020-21), Rs. 29,880 (for AY 2021-22), and Rs. 41,697 (for AY 2022-23)? This issue concerns the allowability of TDS credit when it is reflected in the name of a trustee. 3. Whether the learned CIT(A) erred in raising a demand of Rs. 5,467 (for AY 2020-21), Rs. 7,445 (for AY 2021-22), and Rs. 8,692 (for AY 2022-23)? This issue is consequential to the TDS credit claim. Assessee's Contentions: The rectification application was within the stipulated time, considering the Hon'ble Apex Court's directions to exclude the Covid period. The appeal was filed within the stipulated time before the CIT(A) after the CPGRAM grievance was closed. The TDS credit should be granted as it is reflected in the name of a trustee, and the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) erred by dismissing the appeal instead of remanding. Revenue's Contentions: The revenue relied upon the assessment order/intimation u/s.143(1) and the CPGRAM order dated 23-04-2024.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH

Before: Dr. BRR Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Shah, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Ravindra, Sr. D.R

आदेश/ORDER

Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member:

1.

These three appeals are filed against the order dated 31-07-2024 passed by CIT(A)/Addl/JCIT(A)-9, Mumbai for assessment years 2020-21, 2021-22 & 2022-23.

2.

The grounds of appeals are as under:-

A.Y. 2020-21 “1. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in points of law and facts.

2. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has to 328/Ahd/2025 Urmilaben H. Dave Disc Family Trust, A.Y. 2020-21 to 2023-24 erred in holding that appeal was filed late and therefore, he did not condone alleged delay. It is submitted that appeal was filed in time. Appeal was filed on 29/05/2024 against rejection of our grievance on 23/04/2024 and received by us on 30/04/2024.

3. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in not granting credit of TDS amounting to Rs 35,493.

4. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in raising demand of Rs 5,467.

5. Your appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend all or any of the above grounds of appeal as may be advised from time to time.”

A.Y. 2021-22 “1. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in points of law and facts.

2. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that appeal was filed late and therefore, he did not condone alleged delay. It is submitted that appeal was filed in time. Appeal was filed on 29/05/2024 against rejection of our grievance on 23/04/2024 and received by us on 30/04/2024.

3. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in not granting credit of TDS amounting to Rs 29,880.

4. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in raising demand of Rs 7,445.

5. Your appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend all or any of the above grounds of appeal as may be advised from time to time.”

to 328/Ahd/2025 Urmilaben H. Dave Disc Family Trust, A.Y. 2020-21 to 2023-24 2. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that appeal was filed late and therefore, he did not condone alleged delay. It is submitted that appeal was filed in time. Appeal was filed on 29/05/2024 against rejection of our grievance on 23/04/2024 and received by us on 30/04/2024.

3. In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in not granting credit of TDS amounting to Rs 41,697.

4.

In law and in facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in raising demand of Rs 8,692.

5.

Your appellant reserves the right to add, alter, amend all or any of the above grounds of appeal as may be advised from time to time.”

3.

The assessee filed return of income on 24-10-2020 declaring total income at Rs. 3,52,130/- and claimed refund of Rs. 30,026/-. The intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act was passed on 21-10-2021 and the claim for tax deducted at source to Rs. 35,493/- was not allowed. The rectification application u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act was filed on 13-04-2023 for TDS credit of Rs. 35,493/-. The CPGRAM Grievance Application was filed on 11-04-2024 by the assessee and the CPGRAM Grievance Application was closed on 23-04-2024 and the assessee’s claim for credit to TDS to the extent of Rs. 35,493/- was rejected and demand of Rs. 5470/- was raised.

4. Aggrieved by the said rejection, the assessee filed appeal against the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 21-10-2021 before the CIT(A) on 29-05- 2024. Thus, the CIT(A) observed that there is a delay of 919 to 328/Ahd/2025 Urmilaben H. Dave Disc Family Trust, A.Y. 2020-21 to 2023-24 days in filing the appeal. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay as well as observing that the closure of CPGRAM is not an appealable order. The assessee filed present appeal before the Tribunal.

5. The trustee has filed the application for condonation of delay in filing the present appeal before the Tribunal which is delayed by 104 days thereby stating that the trustee forgot to submit the order of the CIT(A) to the chartered accountant of the trust. Since the delay before the Tribunal has been explained by the assessee trust and it appears genuine, hence the delay is condoned.

6.

The ld. A.R. submitted that the rectification application was made within the stipulated time i.e. on 13-04-2023 as during the covet period, the Hon’ble Apex Court has directed to exclude the period of limitation due to Covid till 28th Feb, 2022. The ld. A.R. submitted that the order for CPGRAM Grievance Application was closed on 23-04-2024 in respect of rectification application, therefore assessee trust has rightly filed the appeal within the stipulated time before the CIT(A). The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee be given credit of TDS of Rs. 35,493/- as the TDS deducted amounting to Rs. 35,493/- is reflected in the name of Hasmukhbhai S Dave who is a trustee of the trust and TDS was not claimed by Hasmukhbhai S Dave for assessment year 2020-21. The copy of Form 26AS of Hasmukhbhai S Dave was attached to the rectification application dated 23- 01-2023 and submitted to the Assessing Officer. Since the to 328/Ahd/2025 Urmilaben H. Dave Disc Family Trust, A.Y. 2020-21 to 2023-24 Assessing Officer has not passed rectification order and simply closed the case of the assessee, the matter may be remanded back to the Assessing Officer for considering the assessee trust’s claim that credit of TDS should be given in the name of the trust. The ld. A.R. further submitted that the CIT(A) instead of remanding back the matter to the Assessing Officer and directing the Assessing Officer to consider assessee trust’s claim, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

7.

The ld. D.R. relied upon the assessment order/intimation u/s. 143(1), CPGRAM disposed of the order dated 23-04-2024.

8.

We heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to the note that the CIT(A) has not commented anything on the merits of the case related to the refund in respect of TDS credit to the assessee trust. The rectification application filed by the assessee on 08-02-2023 was not rejected or accepted by the Assessing Officer. On 23-04-2024, the CPGRAM disposed of the complaint of the assessee trust dated 11-04-2024 thereby stating the case ‘closed’. It will be appropriate that the matter may be remanded back to the Assessing Officer with the direction that if the credit of TDS is in the name of trustee and the trust being given the details whether money are credited by trustee into the account of the trust, the same should be taken into account and the due credit to the to 328/Ahd/2025 Urmilaben H. Dave Disc Family Trust, A.Y. 2020-21 to 2023-24 assessee trust be given accordingly. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

9.

All the three appeals are identical in facts and therefore the direction passed in for assessment year 2020-21 be followed in subsequent assessment years 2021-22 and 2022-23 being and 328/Ahd/2025.

10.

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30-05-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. BRR Kumar) (Suchitra Kamble) Vice President Judicial Member Ahmedabad : Dated 30/05/2025 आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →