Loading judgment…
Facts
A partnership firm's claim for TCS credit of Rs. 88,330/- was rejected by the CPC/AO during processing under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The credit pertained to a vehicle purchased in a partner's name but financed and used for business by the firm. The Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had previously set aside the issue to the AO for verification.
Held
The Tribunal held that the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) lacked the power to merely set aside the issue to the Assessing Officer. It thus set aside the Addl./JCIT(A)'s order and remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification. The AO is directed to allow the TCS claim if found correct based on facts and law.
Key Issues
Denial of TCS credit for a business vehicle registered in a partner's name but financed by the firm, and the scope of Addl./JCIT(A)'s power to set aside issues to the Assessing Officer.
Sections Cited
143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI R.K. PANDA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA
Assessment Year : 2022-23 Jayesh Darbi Collection, Assistant Commissioner 158A, Railway Lines, of Income Tax, Solapur Solapur-413001 Vs. PAN : AANFJ9024E अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Pramod S Shingte Department by : Shri Madhan Thirmanpalli Date of hearing : 13-01-2026 Date of 04-02-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER
PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM :
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.12.2024 of the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Udaipur [“Addl./JCIT(A)”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2022-23.
There is a delay of 22 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay. After hearing both the sides, we are of the view that the delay is attributable to the sufficient cause. We, therefore, in light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh reported in 2025 Live Law (SC) 339, condone the said delay and proceed to decide the appeal.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a partnership firm. For AY 2022-23, it e-filed its return of income on 27.09.2019 disclosing total income of Rs.1,27,53,460/-. The return of the assessee was processed by Central Processing Unit/Assessing Officer (“CPC/AO”) u/s 143(1(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) wherein the CPC/AO rejected the claim for credit of TCS of Rs.88,330/- and raised demand of Rs.1,04,020/- in respect of the car/vehicle purchased by the assessee firm in the name of one of his partner, Jayesh Gopal Darbi.
Aggrieved by such order of the CPC/AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) contending that the credit for the said sum of TCS may be granted to the assessee as the TCS belongs to the assessee firm and not to its partner. The Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) set aside the impugned issue to the file of the Ld. AO for verification of claim of TCS credit and allow the same if the claim of the assessee is found to be correct. The relevant observation and findings of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) is reproduced below : “5.3 Here it is important that any taxes including TDS, Advance Tax etc. which are paid to the Central Government against any PAN are reflected in Form 26AS of the corresponding PAN. The facts of the case of the present appellant are seen with respect to the provisions of the Income Tax Act. It is noticed that the appellant filed the ITR-5 claiming TDS/TCS credit of Rs. 99,984/- for AY 2022-23. The appellant received an intimation u/s 143(1) dated 02/03/2023 allowing a credit of TCS of Rs. 11,652/-. The TCS of Rs. 99,984/- belongs to the firm but the CPC in the intimation order has allowed credit for TDS at Rs 11,652/-as against the amount of Rs 99,984/- claimed by the appellant. 5.4 Thus, considering the facts of the case, the AO is directed to grant the appellant an opportunity of being heard, in the light of the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court of its own motion V/s CIT 352 ITR 273 and Instructions of CBDT, New Delhi and verify the TCS made in the appellant's case which is relatable to the income offered for taxation for A.Y. 2022-23 with respect to TDS claimed by the appellant and Form 26AS of the appellant and any other material which is relevant for the verification of TCS credit and thereafter grant the credit of TCS, if the claim of the appellant is found to be correct. 6. In view of the above, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.”
Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following solitary ground of appeal : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the lower authorities have erred in denying the credit for claim of TCS of Rs. 88,330/- in the hands of the appellant firm, in the intimation passed u/s 143(1) dated 02/03/2023, by rejecting appellant's contention in this regard. Your appellant prays for allowing the credit of TCS. Your appellant prays for deletion of entire addition. Your appellant craves for to add, alter amend, modify, delete any or all grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing in the interest of natural justice.”
We have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. The facts of the case are not in dispute. We find that the CPC/AO has denied the credit for claim of TCS of Rs.88,330/- in the hands of the assessee firm vide intimation order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 02.03.2023. Before us the Ld. AR submitted that the vehicle with respect to which TCS credit has been claimed by the assessee firm was purchased in the personal name of one of the partners of the firm, namely Jayesh Gopal Darbi. However, the entire purchase cost was financed by the assessee firm and the vehicle has been used for the purpose of business of the assessee firm. He submitted that all the relevant documents/evidences were furnished before the Ld. AO in support of the claim made by the assessee. However, the same has not been considered and the assessee’s claim of TCS credit has been denied. We find that the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) has set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. AO for verification of the claim of the assessee and to allow the same as a result thereof for the reason reproduced in the preceding paragraph. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) has no power to set aside the impugned issue to the file of the Ld. AO for verification and allowability thereof and hence he urged that the matter may be set aside to the file of the Ld. AO to verify and allow the claim of credit of TCS to the assessee. The Ld. DR had no objection to the said request of the Ld. AR. We find some force in the arguments advanced by the Ld. AR. We, therefore, deem it fit to set aside the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) and remit the issue back to the file of the Ld. AO to make necessary verification of the claim of the assessee and if the claim of the assessee is found to be correct, allow the same as per fact and law. We direct and order accordingly. The ground raised by the assessee is thus allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 04th February, 2026.