AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :-
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the JCIT(A)-2, dated 07.02.2025 pertaining to A.Y 2023-24.
The main issue raised by the assessee in the present appeal is against non credit of TDS on account of mismatch in Form 26AS.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a public limited company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of different types of chemicals. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y under consideration on 28.11.2023 declaring total income of Rs. 2,53,32,71,789/- under the normal provisions of the Act and reported the deemed income u/s 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short] of Rs. 3,67,09,43,593/-.
Subsequently, the income was processed vide intimation dated 30.01.2024 wherein the returned income of the assessee was duly accepted. However, in the said intimation, the DDIT, CPC, while determining the tax liability had erred in not providing full credit of tax amounting to Rs. 2,77,546/- deducted at source as claimed by the assessee in its return of income.
At the very outset the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the DDIT, CPC was required to intimate the assessee about the mismatch in the TDS claimed in the return vis a vis TDS credit as per the department’s record and was required to furnish proper opportunity to assessee to explain before issuing the impugned intimation and denying the claim of TDS credit to the tune of Rs. 2,77,546/-. The DDIT, CPC denied the assessee its due TDS credit and not allowing opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, the ld. counsel for the assessee prayed that the intimation deserves to be struck down and TDS adjustments made thereon while determining the tax liability of refund due to the assessee deserves to be deleted in entirety.
Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.
A perusal of the above grounds of appeal reveal that the main argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee is that the DDIT, CPC has not afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. Having heard the rival submissions, we are of the considered view that the CPC ought to have given a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the appeal afresh after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The AO is directed to consider the evidences/material furnished by the assessee and allow credit of TDS after due verification. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings and furnish documents/evidence as required by the Assessing Officer.
In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No. 2181/DEL/2025 is allowed for statistical purposes.