Riju Srivastava vs Income Tax Officer

The instant appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 27.01.2026 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Ld. CIT(A)] arising out of the assessment order dated 05.01.2024 passed under Section147 r.w.s.144read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department for Assessment Year 2019-20.

Brief facts leading to this case is this that the assessee is an individual whose case was reopened by issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act dated 31.03.2025 based on the information available with the Department in respect of receipt of salary income not offered to tax the assessment whereof was completed on 05.01.2024 holding total income of Rs.31,78,754/-. It is the case of the assessee that addition of Rs.6,72,503/- made on account of same salary of income already offered to tax and disallowance was made of Rs. 3,37,691/- on account of denial of TDS though credit was reflecting in Form 26AS.

Heard the parties perused the materials. It appears, that TDS amounting to Rs.95,625/- deducted by Dentsu Marketing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. and TDS amounting to Rs.2,42,066/- deducted by Group M Media India Private Limited credit whereof has been refused though genuinely reflecting in Form 26AS. The same has failed to be appreciated by the Ld. CIT(A) that the tax were deduced at source and duly deposited. The same was not considered while computing the alleged demand of Rs.16,27,371/-.

It is also a fact that Form 26AS was duly submitted in response to the notices issued but without a result. Further fact reveals that income attributed to Carat Media Services India Pvt. Ltd. appearing in the bank statement and Dentsu Marketing Solutions Pvt. Ltd. reflecting in 26AS pertains to one and the same legal entity. As per records of MCA, both names are associated with single CIN (U74300MH1996PTC104701). It seems that since names are different in the bank statement and Form 26AS, even the same were documented before the Ld. CIT(A) including Form 16 by employer, the Ld. CIT(A) considered the salary income reflecting in the bank statements over and above salary reflecting in 26AS of Rs.10,33,260/- including the disputed amount of Rs.6,72,503/-reflecting in the bank statement. Thus, having regard to the entire aspect of the matter order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is found to be palpably bad. The assessee is entitled to relief as claimed. Thus, the addition is deleted.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed.