Kanika Satyanand vs ITO, Circle 28(1)

PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.CIT(A))”] vide order dated 13-3-2026 pertaining to A.Y. 2024-25 arising out the order dated 30.9.2025 passed u/s.154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, (in short ‘the Act’).

The assessee raised the following solitary ground of appeal:

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for AY 2024-25 on 30.7.2024 declaring income of Rs. 1,00,50,890/-. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Act on 29.9.2025 by denying the TDS credit of RS. 2,22,988/-, against which the Assessee is in appeal before us.

The Ld. AR submitted that CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in denying TDS credit of Rs. 2,22,988/- despite the assessee having duly offered the corresponding 50 percent share of income to tax. It was further submitted that CIT(A) failed to appreciate that Mr. Mohit Satyanand had claimed credit for only 50 per cent of the TDS in his return of income, thereby clearly attributing the balance income and corresponding TDS top the assessee. The denial of TDS credit on mere procedural grounds, despite complete disclosure of material facts, is contrary to Section 199 read with Rule 37BA and settled principles of substantive justice.

On the other hand, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

We have heard the parties and perused the material available on record. It is noted that the assessee claimed TDS credit of RS. 2,22,988/- (deducted by Zodius Techology Fund and Zodius Technology Opportunities Fund) out of the total TDS claimed of Rs. 4,756,082/- on income offered to tax. This TDS pertains to income received from Zodius Technologies and was deducted under section 194LBB of the Income Tax Act. The total income credited by Zodius Technologies amounted to Rs. 44,59,794/-, on which TDS of Rs. 4,45,979/- was deducted. The TDS, whoever, was deducted in the name of Mr. Mohit Satyanand (brother of the assessee), whose PAN is AFGPS1957P. It is further noted that during the relevant assessment year, Mr. Mohit Satyanand (brother of the assessee) while filing his return of income, reported only 50% of the income from Zodius Technologies i.e. Rs. 22,29,988/- and correspondingly claimed 50% of TDS, i.e. Rs. 2,22,988, as reflected in his computation of income and Form 26AS. The remaining 50% of income, alongwith the proportionate 50% of the TDS, was duly offered to tax in the assessee’s return, but TDS credit was not allowed, however, assessee has duly offered the corresponding 50 per cent share of income to tax and Mr. Mohit Satyananad had claimed credit for only 50 per cent of the TDS in his return of income, thereby clearly attributing the balance income and corresponding TDS to the assessee. In view of aforesaid discussions, we direct the Ld. AO to delete entire addition in assessee hands and tax 100% of income in the hands of Mr. Mohit Satyanand and corresponding give credit of 100% TDS thereon. This would meet the ends of justice.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.