Case Law Details
Executors of Shri Ramanlal Jagjivan Gokal Vs Additional/DCIT (ITAT Mumbai)
The Mumbai ITAT held that where an assessee was never served with the intimation under section 143(1), the limitation period for filing appeal cannot start merely from the date of processing of return. The Tribunal observed that the assessee became aware of the outstanding demand only after receipt of a section 245 adjustment order proposing set-off of refund against old tax demand.
The assessee discovered that while processing the return for AY 2009-10, the department had granted TDS credit of only ₹23,501 against total claimed TDS of ₹6.18 lakh, resulting in a huge outstanding demand. Despite specific requests, the AO did not furnish a copy of the original intimation under section 143(1) and merely provided a screenshot from the ITBA portal.
Rejecting the CIT(A)’s finding that the appeal was delayed by nearly 15 years, the ITAT held that the limitation period could only commence from 10.03.2025, being the date on which the assessee first received the ITBA screenshot revealing the basis of demand. Since the appeal was filed on 19.03.2025, the Tribunal held it to be within time.
The Tribunal further noted that Form 26AS and Form 16A prima facie supported the assessee’s claim regarding short grant of TDS credit. Accordingly, the matter was restored to the AO for fresh verification and grant of eligible TDS credit after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI
The assessee has filed the present appeal against the impugned order dated 21.10.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Additional / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai [“learned Addl./Joint CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2009-10.
2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: –
“1. GROUND NO. 1: DISMISSING THE APPEAL ALLEGEDLY HOLDING THE SAME AS TIME BARRED:
1.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal filed by the Appellant holding the same as time-barred.
1.2. The Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that since the intimation u/s. 143(1) which was challenged in the appeal before the Id. CIT(A) itself was received by the Appellant on March 10, 2025 the appeal filed thereafter on March 19, 2025 was within the time limit as per the provisions of the Act.
1.3. The Appellant therefore prays that the appeal be held to be filed within the statutory time limit and the Id. CIT(A) be directed to adjudicate the appeal on merits.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE GROUND NO. 1;
2. GROUND NO. 2: SHORT GRANT OF CREDIT FOR TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE (“TDS”) AMOUTING TO RS. 5.94,873/-:
2.1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground in relation to granting of short credit of TDS amounting to Rs. 5,94,873/- as claimed by the Appellant in its return of income for the captioned assessment year.
2.2. The Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that:
2.2.1. Out of the aforesaid amount of Rs. 5,94,873/-, TDS of Rs. 1,31,373/-deducted by HDFC Bank Limited u/s. 194A of the Act is as per Form 26AS for the captioned year;
2.2.2. the balance TDS of Rs. 4,63,500/- claimed by the Appellant is based on the physical TDS certificates received from Union Bank of India; and
2.2.3. Income corresponding to the aforesaid TDS amounts has duly been offered to tax in the captioned year and therefore, the TDS ought to be allowed in the captioned year as per Section 199 of the Act read with rule 37BA of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.
2.3. The Appellant therefore prays that the Id. AO be directed to grant the credit of TDS amounting to Rs. 5,94,873/-.
3. GROUND NO. 3: LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT:
3.1. The Id. CIT(A) erred in not adjudicating the ground relating to levy of interest u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act amounting to Rs. 1,02,296/- and Rs. 19,607/- respectively.”
3. We have considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record. In the present case, at the outset, it is evident that the learned Addl./Joint CIT(A), vide impugned order, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground of delay of nearly 15 years.
4. During the hearing, the learned Authorized Representative (“learned AR”) submitted that on 22.08.2024, order under section 245 of the Act was passed proposing to adjust the refund for the assessment year 2024-25 against the outstanding demand of Rs. 5,96,470/- for the assessment year 2009-10, i.e., the year under consideration, and a demand of Rs. 1,06,580/-for the assessment year 2018-19. The learned AR submitted that pursuant to the aforesaid order, the assessee for the first time came to know that in the year under consideration a demand of Rs. 5,96,470/- is due to be paid, which was contrary to its claim of refund of Rs. 56,455/- in the return of income. Accordingly, the learned AR submitted that the assessee filed a letter on 05.02.2025 before the Assessing Officer (“AO”) stating that an outstanding demand pertaining to the year under consideration is appearing on the e-filing portal. However, no intimation under section 143(1) of the Act was ever issued to the assessee. The learned AR submitted that, pursuant to the aforesaid request, the AO provided only a screenshot, which shows that the return filed by the assessee was processed vide intimation dated 18.10.2010 issued under section 143(1) of the Act, computing a demand of Rs. 6,60,320/-. The learned AR submitted that, on perusal of the said screenshot, which forms part of the paper book at page 12, the assessee noticed that the TDS credit of Rs. 6,18,374/- was not fully granted to the assessee and was restricted to Rs. 23,501/-. Accordingly, pursuant to the receipt of the screenshot of the ITBA portal from the AO on 10.03.2025, the assessee filed the appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned AR submitted that even to date, the copy of the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act is not served on the assessee, and the assessee only has the screenshot of the ITBA Portal as provided by the AO on 10.03.2025. The learned AR, by referring to the details of TDS credit totalling to Rs. 6,18,374/- claimed during the year, forming part of the paper book at page 2, submitted that the TDS deducted by Union Bank of India of Rs. 23,501/- was granted to the assessee. However, the TDS deducted by the HDFC Bank on fixed deposits and the Union Bank of India on taxable bonds was not granted to the assessee. By referring to Form 26AS forming part of the paper book from pages 13-17, the learned AR submitted that the details of TDS deducted by Union Bank of India and HDFC Bank are part of the very same Form 26AS which, inter alia, comprises the TDS credit of Rs. 23,501/- already granted to the assessee. The learned AR also referred to Form 16A in respect of TDS deducted on taxable bonds. In respect of the aforesaid contentions regarding the delay in filing the appeal before the learned Addl./Joint CIT(A), the assessee placed on record the affidavit of the accountant of the assessee as well as the Executor of the Estate.
5. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently relied upon the order passed by the learned Addl./Joint CIT(A).
6. Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record, in the present case, it is evident that the copy of intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act was not served on the assessee. The only document which is available on record, which shows the demand raised on the assessee for the year under consideration, is the screenshot from the ITBA portal provided to the assessee by the AO. From the perusal of the said screenshot, which forms part of the paper book on page 12, we find that vide intimation dated 18.10.2010 passed under section 143(1) of the Act, the entire TDS credit of Rs. 6,18,374/- was not granted to the assessee and the same was restricted to only Rs. 23,501/-, which apparently pertains to the TDS deducted by the Union Bank of India. In the present case, it is further pertinent to note that vide its letter dated 25.02.2025, the assessee specifically requested the AO to provide a copy of the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act. However, the AO furnished only a screenshot from the ITBA portal. Thus, we find merit in the submissions of the assessee that no intimation under section 143(1) of the Act for the year under consideration was served on the assessee. Therefore, we do not agree with the findings of the learned Addl./Joint CIT(A) that the appeal by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority against the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act was delayed by 15 years, as the assessee never received the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Act despite a specific request made before the AO on 05.02.2025. From the perusal of the affidavits of the Executor of assessee Estate and accountant placed on record, we find that the assessee, for the first time upon receipt of the order passed under section 245 of the Act for the assessment year 2024-25, whereby the refund pertaining to the said year was adjusted against a demand for the year under consideration, became aware of any outstanding demand for the year under consideration. Therefore, it is evident from the record that, until receipt of the screenshot from the ITBA portal, the assessee had no information regarding the basis of the outstanding demand for the instant year. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the limitation period for filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority can only be computed from the date, i.e., 10.03.2025, on which the assessee received the screenshot of the ITBA portal from the AO. Since the assessee filed the appeal before the learned Addl./Joint CIT(A) on 19.03.2025, we are of the considered view that the same was filed within the prescribed limitation period.
7. As is evident from the perusal of the documents placed on record, the complete TDS credit was not granted to the assessee, which resulted in the demand of Rs. 6,60,320/- payable as per section 220(2) of the Act. In respect of this contention of the claim of TDS credit of Rs. 6,18,374/-, the assessee has placed on record Form 26AS as well as Form 16A. From the perusal of Form 26AS, we find that details of TDS deducted by Union Bank of India and HDFC Bank on fixed deposits of the assessee are duly mentioned. Out of the said TDS deducted, the TDS credit amounting to Rs. 23,501/- deducted by Union Bank of India has already been allowed to the assessee. Further, regarding the TDS deducted on taxable bonds issued by the Union Bank of India, the assessee has filed a physical TDS certificate issued in Form 16A by the Union Bank of India, forming part of the paper book from pages 18-23. Thus, the issue is only qua the short grant of TDS credit, which requires factual verification from the documents placed on record. Therefore, we restore this issue to the file of the Jurisdictional AO for de novo adjudication after necessary verification of the details filed by the assessee. Needless to mention, no order shall be passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. With the above direction, the impugned order is set aside, and the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
8. In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 15/05/2026
Author Bio
