Concessional penalty for search-disclosed unreconciled jewellery applies where substantive disclosure conditions are met despite omission from origina...
The ITAT set aside the order of the Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Coimbatore and remanded the matter for fresh consideration regarding TDS credit claims. While the Tribunal rejected the appellant's contention that no reasons were provided for disallowing TDS credits (as AO/CPC had specifically identified unmatched TDS from four contractors), it noted that Form 26AS downloaded on June 18, 2020, showed all TDS entries. The ITAT directed the appellate authority to reconsider the matter in light of previous assessment years (2009-10 to 2014-15 and 2016-17) where similar claims were accepted with refunds issued. The appellant was instructed to respond to notices and provide supporting documentation without seeking adjournments. Appeal partly allowed for statistical purposes.
The ITAT set aside the order of the Addl./JCIT(A)-1, Coimbatore and remanded the matter for fresh consideration regarding TDS credit claims. While the Tribunal rejected the appellant's contention that no reasons were provided for disallowing TDS credits (as AO/CPC had specifically identified unmatched TDS from four contractors), it noted that Form 26AS downloaded on June 18, 2020, showed all TDS entries. The ITAT directed the appellate authority to reconsider the matter in light of previous assessment years (2009-10 to 2014-15 and 2016-17) where similar claims were accepted with refunds issued. The appellant was instructed to respond to notices and provide supporting documentation without seeking adjournments. Appeal partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4828 
Join Channel 
