Case Law Details
Sumantra Mukherjee Vs Circle – 3(1) (ITAT Delhi)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi, dismissed the assessee’s appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] for Assessment Year 2017-18.
The assessee, a salaried individual, did not file his return of income for the relevant assessment year. Reassessment proceedings were initiated under Section 147, and a notice under Section 148 was served through email. Subsequent notices issued under Section 142(1) remained unanswered, though the assessee responded to two show-cause notices.
During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) found that the assessee had earned salary income of ₹52,15,953, on which tax had been deducted at source and reflected in Form 26AS. The assessee also earned interest income of ₹40,993 from bank deposits, with corresponding TDS reflected in Form 26AS.
The assessment was completed under Sections 147/144/144B under the Faceless Assessment Scheme. Apart from salary and interest income, the AO added ₹1,59,600 as income from house property in respect of a vacant flat owned by the assessee in Hyderabad. The AO also did not grant credit for TDS amounting to ₹14,32,580 reflected in Form 26AS.
On appeal, the CIT(A) granted relief by directing the AO to allow full TDS credit of ₹14,32,580 as reflected in departmental records. However, the CIT(A) upheld the additions made under the heads of salary income, house property income, and income from other sources. The CIT(A) also upheld the denial of deduction under Section 80TTA, observed that the reassessment proceedings were validly initiated, found no procedural illegality in the assessment process, and held that the charging of interest and initiation of penalty proceedings were lawful.
While deciding the appeal, the CIT(A) noted that the assessee had consistently failed to comply with statutory notices, had not filed the return of income, had not substantiated key factual claims, and had failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding deductions claimed.
Before the Tribunal, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. After examining the record and considering the submissions of the Departmental Representative, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had adequately dealt with all issues raised by the assessee and had provided reasons for sustaining the additions and disallowances made by the AO. Finding no reason to interfere with the CIT(A)’s conclusions, the Tribunal upheld the appellate order and dismissed all grounds raised by the assessee.
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC Delhi [`CIT(A)’ in short] dated 05.12.2025 arising from the assessment order dated 27.03.2022 under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( `the Act’) concerning Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18.
2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We heard the Id. DR at length who assisted us with the facts of the case and relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. Case records carefully perused and considered.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a salaried individual and his main source of income is from Salary on which tax is deducted at source by the employer. The assessee failed to file his return of income for A.Y 2017-18. A notice u/s 148 of the Act was served to the assessee through e-mail. Thereafter, notices u/s 142(1) were issued but those remained unanswered by the assessee. The assessee filed his response for the following two show cause notices issued. During the year under review that the assessee earned income from the following sources of income:
Income from Salary : Rs. 52,15,953/ – As per Form 16 issued by the employer. TDS of Rs. 14,31,480/- has been deducted and appearing in Form 26AS.
Interest income on bank deposits : Rs. 40,993/- As per bank Statement. TDS of Rs.1100.82 has been deducted and appearing in Form 26AS.
4. The assessment was completed u/s 147/144/144B under Faceless Assessment Scheme. The AO, besides the above referred two sources of income, also added an amount of Rs.1,59,600/- as income from house property for a vacant flat in Hyderabad owned by the assessee.
The AO did not allow credit for TDS of Rs.14,32,580/- appearing in Form 26AS. Aggrieved, assessee was in appeal before the CIT(A)/NFAC who allowed the TDS relief but upheld the additions made by the AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before us with the following grounds:
“1. The order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) NFAC is bad on facts and in law.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the additions of Rs. 1,59,600/- as Income from House Property, that was made by Ld. AO in his assessment order passed U/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act.
3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of deduction U/s 80TTA for Rs.10,000/-.
4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer without properly appreciating the facts, evidence and submissions placed on record by the Appellant.
5. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”
5. Per contra, learned DR relied upon the order of CIT(A).
6. We have heard the learned DR and perused the material available on record. We find that the CIT(A) in his order has given partial relief to the assessee by observing as under:
“After evaluating the assessment records, the detailed submissions of the appellant, and the legal position, I conclude that the Assessing Officer acted in conformity with law and principles of natural justice. The appellant consistently failed to comply with statutory notices, did not file the return of income, did not substantiate key factual claims, and did not discharge the burden of proof for any of the deductions claimed. The additions made by the AO under the heads Salary, Income from House Property, and Income from Other Sources are well founded. The reassessment proceedings were validly initiated; the procedure adopted by the AO is free from any procedural illegality; the denial of 8OTTA deduction is justified in the facts; charging of interest is statutory; and the initiation of penalty is lawful. However, I find that the appellant is fully entitled to the TDS credit of Rs. 14,32,580/- as claimed and as appearing in the departmental records. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to grant full credit of Rs. 14,32,580/- towards TDS while giving effect to this appellate order.
All grounds of appeal are decided accordingly. The is Partly Allowed.”
7. We find that the CIT(A) has dealt with all the issues raised by the assessee and has given reasons for upholding the addition/disallowance made by the AO. In the given factual matrix of the instant case therefore, we find no reason to interfere with the decision of the CIT(A). The ground are dismissed.
8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.1243/Del/2026 is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03.06.2026
Author Bio
