Mula Parisar Serva Seva Sangh Vs Exemption Ward 1(1) (ITAT Pune)
In the case of Mula Parisar Serva Seva Sangh Vs Exemption Ward 1(1), the assessee, a trust, approached the ITAT Pune challenging the decision of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Coimbatore for the assessment year 2018-19. The main issue was the non-granting of TDS credit of Rs. 1,18,77,593/- by the Centralized Processing Center (CPC), despite the amount being reflected in the Form 26AS as tax deducted at source (TDS). The assessee claimed that it was entitled to the refund of the same amount, which was not allowed by the CPC in its initial processing of the return.
The assessee trust, engaged in harvesting and transportation (H&T) of sugarcane, paid contractors for these services and received reimbursement from Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana, the sugar factory. The trust did not show a profit but sought a refund for TDS deducted by the contractors. It was argued that this was a routine practice followed by the trust for many years, with similar claims accepted in earlier years, including assessments for 2009-10 to 2016-17. Despite this consistent practice, the claim for 2018-19 was rejected without providing adequate reasons.
The Ld. JCIT(A)-1 dismissed the assessee’s appeal, stating that there was no basis to allow the TDS refund claim. However, the Tribunal noted that the claim had been accepted in earlier assessments, which involved identical facts and practices. Therefore, the Tribunal found it unjust for the Revenue to take a different stance for the 2018-19 year without providing sufficient reasons for the deviation.
Furthermore, the Tribunal addressed the assessee’s grievance regarding the lack of a clear explanation for the rejection of the TDS credit by the CPC. While the CPC had mentioned the reasons for not allowing the claim, the Tribunal ruled that the matter should be reconsidered in light of the consistent treatment in previous years. The case was remanded back to the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-1 for a fresh examination, with specific instructions to consider the earlier assessment orders and ensure that the process was in line with the established precedents.
In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal, setting the case aside for further investigation. The assessee was advised to comply with the notice requirements and provide necessary documentation. This case highlights the importance of consistency in tax treatment, especially for entities that follow a clear operational procedure over several years.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
