Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee company's income tax return for AY 2023-24 was processed by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore, which disallowed TDS credit of Rs.25,37,405/- due to a mismatch. The assessee appealed to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, who upheld the CPC's action, citing the appellant's failure to provide necessary submissions and reconciliation of income.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had noted the absence of documentary evidence from the assessee. Therefore, the matter was remanded back to the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, directing the assessee to re-submit relevant evidences for verification, and for the CIT(A) to pass a fresh speaking order after verification.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of TDS credit and in not providing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and whether the assessee had submitted sufficient evidence for reconciliation of the TDS claim.
Sections Cited
Section 143(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA
आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:
This appeal preferred by the assessee company emanates from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, dated 08.01.2025 for the assessment year 2023-24 as per the following grounds of appeal:
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated 30/01/2024 passed by Centralized Processing Centre and order dated 08/01/2025 passed by Ld. JCIT(A) is incorrect and illegal.
2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Centralised Processing Centre, Bangalore erred in allowing TDS credit of Rs.4,87,37,493/- instead of Rs.5,12,74,898/-.
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) defied the principles of natural justice by not allowing the appellant company proper opportunity of being heard.
4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred by not considering the submissions and documents placed before him during the course of appellate proceedings.
5. The appellant craves to add, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings.”
The relevant facts in this case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of construction and maintenance of roads, bridges, tunnels, runways etc. The assessee company had filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.20,01,86,950/-. The return of income was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act by the ADIT, CPC, Bangalore on 30.01.2024 at a total income of Rs.20,01,86,950/- and raising demand of Rs.16,94,640/- as against refund of Rs.10,64,440/-. While processing the return of income, TDS claim of Rs.25,37,405/- was not allowed with the comment “Mismatch between Tax Credits claimed and allowed for Rs.25,37,405/-”.
Aggrieved by the order of the A.O/CPC, Bangalore, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, wherein the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC had observed and held as follows:
“The appellant has been provided with opportunities to justify the receipts in relation to the TDS reflected in Form 26AS and the ROI. To date, no communication has been received from the appellant, and notably, no reconciliation of income statement has been submitted. This suggests a lack of willingness on the part of the appellant to pursue the appeal diligently. Without the required details and documentary evidence, it is not possible to verify the appellant’s claim regarding the receipt of income with respect to the TDS claimed in the relevant assessment year. Consequently, the action taken by the CPC is upheld due to the appellant’s failure to provide the necessary submissions.”
At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee company submitted that they have already submitted required evidences before the department. However, the fact remains as evident from the aforesaid observations of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC that till date no communication has been received from the assessee and no reconciliation of income statement has been submitted, therefore, without required details and documentary evidence, it was not possible for the department to verify the assessee’s claim regarding the receipt of income with respect to the TDS claimed for the relevant assessment year.
The Ld. Sr. DR though principally supported the findings of the sub- ordinate authorities, however, she submitted that in the interest of justice, the matter should be verified again at the level of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC providing one final opportunity to the assessee for submitting the relevant documents.
Having heard the parties herein, considering the facts and circumstances in this case, we are of the considered view that reconciliation of the TDS claimed along with the receipt of income needs to be verified and since as per the records, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC has noted that no documentary evidence have been filed by the assessee. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC with a direction to the assessee to re-submit, if earlier submitted also, the relevant evidences and submission so that the matter can be verified by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC who thereafter shall pass a speaking order as per law.
As per the above terms, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee company are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee company is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 7th May, 2025.