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.
