JUBILANT INGREVIA LIMITED,AMROHA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ACIT-1, MORADADBAD
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the DDIT, CPC ought to have provided the assessee with a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. In the interest of justice and fair play, the appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a public limited company, filed its return of income. The processing of the return by the DDIT, CPC resulted in an intimation that did not provide full credit for TDS deducted at source, amounting to Rs. 2,77,546/-, due to a mismatch in Form 26AS. The assessee contended that it was not given a proper opportunity to explain the mismatch.
What were the issues?
Whether the DDIT, CPC afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee before denying TDS credit due to mismatch in Form 26AS.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the JCIT(A)-2, dated 07.02.2025 pertaining to A.Y 2023-24.
Page 1 of 5 against non credit of TDS on account of mismatch in Form 26AS.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of different types of chemicals. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y under consideration on 28.11.2023 declaring total income of Rs. 2,53,32,71,789/- under the normal provisions of the Act and reported the deemed income u/s 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] of Rs. 3,67,09,43,593/-.
Subsequently, the income was processed vide intimation dated 30.01.2024 wherein the returned income of the assessee was duly accepted. However, in the said intimation, the DDIT, CPC, while determining the tax liability had erred in not providing full credit of tax amounting to Rs. 2,77,546/- deducted at source as claimed by the assessee in its return of income.
At the very outset the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the DDIT, CPC was required to intimate the assessee about the mismatch in the TDS claimed in the return vis a vis TDS credit as per the Page 2 of 5 assessee to explain before issuing the impugned intimation and denying the claim of TDS credit to the tune of Rs. 2,77,546/-. The DDIT, CPC denied the assessee its due TDS credit and not allowing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the ld. counsel for the assessee prayed that the intimation deserves to be struck down and TDS adjustments made thereon while determining the tax liability of refund due to the assessee deserves to be deleted in entirety.
Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
A perusal of the above grounds of appeal reveal that the main argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee is that the DDIT, CPC has not afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the considered view that the CPC ought to have given a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer.
The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the appeal afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The AO is directed to consider the evidences/material
Page 3 of 5 The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and furnish documents/evidence as required by the Assessing Officer. allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open court on 27.08.2025.
More judgments on Section 115JB
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Digjam Limited, Jamnagar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 349/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Braithwaite & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 1(1), KolkataITA 1076/KOL/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 964/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur… vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 963/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Som Nath Nagar Mal Th Partner Sanjay Mahajan vs. Union Of INDIA Th Department Of Financial Services, Ministry Of Finance And OthersJammu and Kashmir and Ladakh · 2 Nov 2026
- Mohd. Aqil Proprietor Of M/S Ma Garments vs. Principal Commissioner Central GST, Delhi And Anr.Delhi · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Crs Builders Private Limited vs. Commissioner State Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026
- Noore Manpower Services vs. Commissioner Central Goods And Services TaxUttarakhand · 2 Nov 2026