VIVAAN DESH NIRMAN PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-26(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 386/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 February 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, MS ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)5 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal identified the root cause of the dispute as non-reconciliation of income with the tax credit shown in Form 26AS. Consequently, the Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh verification and decision, after providing the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard and directing the assessee to furnish a reconciliation statement.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, which confirmed the Assessing Officer's actions of disallowing TDS credit of Rs. 40,21,847/-, determining an additional net tax liability of Rs. 51,30,847/-, and charging interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C. The assessee did not attend the hearing before the Tribunal despite notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the non-allowance of TDS credit, leading to additional tax demand and interest liabilities, due to non-reconciliation of tax credit with Form 26AS.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 194C,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘H’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & MS ASTHA CHANDRA

For Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR
Hearing: 20.02.2024Pronounced: 20.02.2024

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the ld. CIT(A) - 9, Delhi dated 27.11.2019 pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19.

2.

The grievances of the assessee read as under:

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer (Hereinafter referred to as A.O./CPC, Bangalore") of being not allowing credit for TDS of Rs. 40,21,847/- being TDS u/s 194C deducted by M/ s Zillion Infraprojects Pvt. Ltd.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the A.O./CPC, Bangalore, of being determining additional net tax liability of Rs. 51,30,847/- payable by the appellant.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the earned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action 'of the A.O. of being interest of Rs. 2,55,432/- charged ix] s 234A of the IncomeTax Act, 1961.

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the A.O. of being interest of Rs. 6,38,580/- charged u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the A.O. of being interest at Rs. 2,14,988/- charged vi] s 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 .

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the earned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the A.O. for not granting refund of Rs. 23,950/-.”

3.

None attended on behalf of the assessee inspite of notices. We decided to proceed exparte.

4.

Having heard the ld. DR, we have carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. We find that root cause of the quarrel is non reconciliation of income qua tax credit mentioned in Form 26AS.

5.

After giving thoughtful consideration, we are of the considered view that this issue needs verification and, accordingly, we restore this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. The assessee is directed to furnish a reconciliation statement of income tax credit shown in Form 26AS.

6.

The Assessing Officer is directed to verify the same and decide the issue afresh after affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7. Needless to mention, the levy of interest/penalty would be consequential and the Assessing Officer is directed to levy the same as

per provisions of law.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 20.02.2024.

More judgments on Section 194C

All 2,696 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →