AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
In this case, a delay of over 400 days has been reported, for which the assessee has filed a petition seeking condonation of the same as under:
“I, Naresh Chaprana, S/o Late Shri Chander Pal, aged about 56 years, residing at 2245, Sector-16, Faridabad Sector 16 a S.O., 121002, Haryana, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as under:
01.THAT I am the Appellant in the above mentioned appeal and am fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case, hence I am competent to depose this affidavit.
02.THAT I am not a lettered/highly educated person and I do not possess the necessary technical skills or “tech-savvy” knowledge required to operate or navigate the Income Tax Department’s e-filing portal.
03.THAT I have never been involved in any income-tax litigation in the past.
04.THAT the order under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was never served upon me physically at 2245, Sector-16, Faridabad Sector 16a S.O., 121002, Haryana.
05.THAT due to the lack of physical service and my inability to access the digital portal, I remained completely unaware of the passing of the said order until 31.12.2025, when that the professional of the appellant on going through the e-filing portal of the Income Tax Department during filing of the revised income tax return came across that fact that order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had been passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) back in September, 2024.
06.THAT immediately upon gaining knowledge of the said order, I consulted a tax professional, who advised me to file an appeal before this Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi.
07.THAT the delay in filing the present appeal is purely on account of my digital illiteracy and the absence of physical service, and there was no deliberate intention or negligence on my part to delay the proceedings.
08.THAT I pray that the delay of 450 days in filing the appeal be condoned in the interest of substantial justice.”
Considering the reasons given, the delay is hereby condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.
This appeal arises from order dated 26.09.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), by NFAC.
In this case, the matter involves a rectification application u/s 154 of the Act. The main issue pertains to giving credit for taxes deducted at source amounting to a total of Rs.11,93,495/-, out of which credit for Rs.409,081/- was not being allowed by the Ld. AO.
The Ld. CIT(A), on being approached by the assessee, denied the benefit by recording a finding that this issue was controversial and debatable and thus, would not be covered within the mandate u/s 154 of the Act.
The aggrieved assessee has approached the ITAT on this very same issue.
Before us the Ld. AR placed on record certain documents and filed written submissions to canvass the point that TDS of Rs.409,081/- was deducted by the Land Acquisition Officer, Faridabad and this figure was also reported in 26AS for the relevant year. The Ld. AR argued that it was a simple matter and granting the benefit of taxes deducted at source, being held to be worthy of argument, was not readily understood. It was averred that the said TDS was duly reflected in Form 26AS, was duly claimed as such in the return of income and the corresponding income was offered to tax. It was argued that this issue was within the purview of Section 154 of the Act.
The Ld. DR relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the records before us. We find that though the assessee has relied on certain case laws before the Ld. CIT(A) and probably that is what prompted the first appellate authority to hold that the matter was debatable. However, we find that the assessee deserves to be allowed the benefit of taxes deducted at source on receipts which have been duly disclosed in the return of income. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand this matter back to the file of Ld. AO for examining whether the receipts on which the TDS has been made are reflected in the return of income and if so then the credit for TDS has to be necessarily allowed.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.