DHIRAJLAL SAVAILAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE AO,CPC, BANGALORE PRESENT JURIDICTION THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(1), AHMEDABAD

The grounds of appeal are as under:-

The assessee is an individual. For assessment year 2017-18, the assessee filed return of income on 15-03-2018 declaring total income for Rs. 2,37,970/-. During the year, the assessee sold an agricultural land located in rural area and therefore did not pay capital gain tax on the same. The buyer of the land was also not required to make TDS on the same. However, the buyer of the land made TDS of Rs. 1,42,500/- by mistake. These are the submissions of the assessee before the CIT(A). The TDS was reflected in Form 26AS and therefore the assessee claimed credit for the same in the return of income. While processing the return of income u/s. 143(1) of the Act, the CPC, Bangalore did not give credit of TDS on property for Rs. 1,42,500/- and therefore the

Being aggrieved by the rectification order u/s. 154 of the Income Tax Act dated 28-11-2019, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

The ld. A.R. submitted that the assessee sold immoveable property being agricultural rural land and accordingly the purchaser was subjected to TDS of Rs. 1,42,500/- on the said transaction. The assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration claiming the subjected TDS. However, the same was not given credit by the CPC as the corresponding income was not admitted by the assessee as the assessee derived the said income from agricultural rural land which is exempt from tax. The ld. A.R. further submitted that as the TDS is reflected in 26AS credit should have been allowed as there is only banakhat and no income was required to be shown in the return of income. If the receipt is not liable to tax in the hands of the recipient for any reason, the same cannot be a ground for not granting credit for TDS. The credit for TDS is shown in 26AS and thus the same is correctly reflected in the return of income which was pointed out at page 59 before the CIT(A).

The ld. D.R. submitted that the income was not reflected whether it is an agricultural land and the selling of the said land, therefore the Assessing Officer as well as CIT(A) has rightly made the addition. It is clear that if claim should be made in return of income and in absence of the same, the assessee is not entitled for any claim as such since there is no corresponding income in the return of income. The assessee’s claim for TDS was rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

Heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the return of earlier years of the assessee, 26AS statement, Form 16 & Form 16A and specially in assessee’s case Form 26AS, the TDS deducted by the purchaser of the said agricultural land was properly reflected. The observations of the CIT(A) as well as by the Assessing Officer that the same is not reflected in 26AS is not justifiable. Therefore, the credit for TDS should have been allowed by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) ignored the same fact and without any detailed reasoning except that quoting the section 143 memorandum of Finance Bill 2016 and the decision of ITAT Pune Bench there is no reasoning in respect of assessee’s case. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.