STERLITE INTERLINKS LIMITED,GURUGRAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-22(2), NEW DELHI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] dated 25.08.2025, for the Assessment Year 2021-22.

Shri Rohit Jain, appearing on behalf of the assessee submits that the assessee had filed return of income for AY 2021-22 declaring total income of Rs.49,74,190/- . The assessee in its return of income had claimed refund of Rs.3,01,52,020/-. The return of assessee was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act,1961(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) and intimation dated 29.12.2022 was communicated to the assessee raising a demand of Rs.7,52,58,450/-. The assessee (A.Y.2021-22) filed rectification petition u/s.154 of the Act claiming TDS credit of Rs.3,14,03,925/- and thereafter issuance of refund of Rs.3,01,52,020/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) dismissed the rectification petition vide order dated 04.06.2024 holding that the assessee has failed to show corresponding receipts in its ITRs. The ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee in the return of income had declared interest amounting to Rs.35,86,98,325/-. He further pointed that even in the intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act, prepaid taxes has been reflected as Rs.3,14,03,925/- against the amount of TDS/advance tax. The CPC took into account prepaid tax of Rs.3,54,636/- only. The assessee furnished complete details of gross receipts offered to tax and TDS credit claimed, the same is tabulated at page 121 of the paper book. The assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A) against the order passed by the AO u/s.154 of the Act dated 04.06.2024. The CIT(A) dismissed appeal of the assessee holding that the assessee has failed to furnish adequate evidence to justify the claim of full TDS credit of Rs.3,14,03,924/-. The ld. Counsel submits that the primary reason for difference in the TDS claimed by the assessee and the TDS computed by the AO is on account of the difference in Form 26AS. He prayed for a direction to the AO to allow entire TDS credit.

Per contra, Shri Manoj Kumar representing the department strongly supporting findings of the AO and the CIT(A) prayed for dismissing appeal of the assessee.

Both sides heard, orders of the authorities below examined. The short issue in the present appeal is TDS credit not allowed by the AO and the CIT(A) to the assessee. The contention of the assessee is that the assessee had claimed TDS credit of Rs.3,14,03,924/-. The AO/CPC restricted the credit to Rs.67,03,809/- and denied balance i.e. Rs.2,47,00,116/-. The primary reason for disallowance of TDS (A.Y.2021-22) credit is that the assessee has failed to furnish adequate evidences to justify the claim of full TDS credit. Taking into consideration entire facts of the case and the submissions of the assessee’s Counsel, I deem it appropriate to restore this issue back to the AO for denovo examination. The assessee is at liberty to furnish the requisite documents/evidences to substantiate its claim of TDS credit. The AO after considering the submissions and the documentary evidences filed by the assessee shall allow TDS credit, in accordance with law.

In the result, impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.