SACHIN GOVIND KELKAR,PUNE vs. CIT (A), PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 546/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 August 2024AY 2022-23Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the matter requires factual re-conciliation rather than detailed adjudication. It directed the lower authority to re-adjudicate the matter afresh concerning the TDS credit.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the assessment year 2022-23, arising from an intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The primary issue is the denial of TDS credit, leading to a demand of Rs. 2,69,430.

What were the issues?

Whether TDS credit appearing under a HUF's PAN can be denied to an individual who is the legal heir and has offered the income to tax. The validity of the intimation and levy of interest were also questioned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 250(6),Section 254(1),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

Hearing: 06.08.2024Pronounced: 28.08.2024

Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1060031872(1), dated 23.01.2024, in proceedings u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

1.

“The Assessing Officer/CPC erred in law and on facts

while processing the return of income and providing the 2 ITA.No.546/PUN./2024 intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and denial of TDS credit and raising the demand of Rs.2,69,430/-.

2. The Assessing Officer/ CPC erred in law in not allowing

the credit of TDS in the name of the HUF of the Appellant's deceased uncle, though the Appellant who is the legal heir of the property of the HUF and also offered the income from the property to tax while filing the return of income.

3. The Assessing officer erred in not considering the facts as inherited property belongs to the Appellant and hence, the Appellant also offered the income from the property to tax

in his return of income. Merely because the TDS is appearing in the HUF's PAN, the credit of the same cannot be denied.

4. Under the present case, the said disallowance is arbitrary,

unjustified, and unwarranted and needs to be deleted.

5.

The intimation passed by the Assessing Officer/ CPC does

not given the full details of the TDS unmatched and hence the same is bad in law and devoid of any merits.

6.

The Assessing Officer erred in levy of interest under section 234A, 234B and 234 C of the Act and the same is not justified.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, modify and or delete any or all of the grounds of appeal mentioned herein above.”

3 ITA.No.546/PUN./2024

3.

It next emerges with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the main issue herein of the alleged mismatch in TDS credit resulting in demand of Rs.2,69,430/; more requires a factual re-conciliation than this tribunal’s detailed adjudication u/sec.254(1) of the Act. The assessee has indeed sought to make-out a case based on mitigating circumstances in the instant appeal that since there are various inconsistencies qua the instant issue involving the issue of TDS credit in the HUF as well as individual’s case; the matter be sent back to the Field Authorities for their afresh detailed examination.

4.

We thus find force in the assessee’s instant sole substantive arguments in principle and direct the learned Addl./JCIT(A)-4, Kolkata to re-adjudicate the matter afresh in tune with sec.250(6) of the Act so as to arrive at the assessee’s impugned TDS credit as per law, within three effective opportunities of hearing at his own risk and responsibility.

Ordered accordingly.

4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 28.08.2024.

More judgments on Section 234A

All 5,126 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →