AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 719
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') dated 23.10.2019. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. In law and in facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in not allowing TDS credit of Rs.2,21,000 though the same is duly reflected in form no 26AS of the Appellant. 1.1 In law and in facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre erred in not allowing the TDS credit of Rs.2,21,000 though the capital gain on sale of property was offered for taxation in the hands of Partnership form and no revenue loss incurred to the department. 1.2 In law and in facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....grace period. Therefore, delay in filing of appeal is condoned. Now adverting to the facts of the case. 3. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is an individual and partner in one of the partnership firm namely M/s Shri Hari Agri. The assessee filed his return of income for assessment year (AY) 2018-19 on 21.01.2019 declaring income of Rs.2,52,720/- and claimed credit of Tax Deducted at Sources (TDS) under section 194IA of Rs.2,21,000/-. The return was processed by Centralized Processing Centre, Bengaluru (CPC) vide intimation dated 23.10.2020. The CPC not allowed such credit of TDS of Rs.2,21,000/-. The assessee filed application under section 154 for seeking rectification in the intimation of CPC, vide application dated 08.10.2020. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... TDS is given to assessee. The claim of refund was not granted at the time of passing order under section 143(1), which was a mistake apparent from the record. The assessee filed rectification application under section 154 on 08.10.2020, which was rejected by CPC. The assessee reiterated that capital gains ws accepted in the hand of partnership firm because which was correctly shown. The rejection of claim of TDS of Rs.2,21,000/- in the hand of assessee was not justified. 5. The NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submission of the assessee rejected / dismissed the appeal of assessee by holding that provisions of section 199 and Rule 37BA, the credit can be claimed only in the year in which such income is assessable in the hand of the pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S made on the transaction pertaining to another entity, the income of which is not includable in the hand of assessee. 7. I have considered the submission of Ld. Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr-DR) for the Revenue and perused the materials available on record and the orders of lower authorities carefully. I find that in the return of income the assessee claimed refund of TDS reflected in his Form-26AS. the CPC denied such refund in its intimation dated 08.10.2018. The assessee filed application for rectification under section 154. In the application under section 154, the assessee claimed such refund on the ground that during the financial year, immovable property was sold by said partnership firm (M/s Shri Hari Agri.) which was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epresentative capacity as a partner. The assessee has not filed any declaration that as per Rule 37BA the credit be given to the partnership firm. I find that there is no dispute that the TDS was deducted on the sale consideration of the asset, which was owned by partnership firm. Further, there is no dispute that the assessee is partner in the said firm and signed the sale deed on behalf of partner in fiduciary relationship. It is also admitted fact that the TDS was credited in the account of (PAN) of assessee. However, from the fact of the present case, it is not clear that any tax liability was created against the firm on transfer of such asset, which was owned by firm. Thus, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, I....