2026 (7) TMI 881

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt "the Act") for the A.Y.2024-25. 2. In the above-mentioned appeal, the appellant filed following grounds of appeal: "1. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there is no variation whatsoever between the returned income and the assessed income, both being Rs. 1,14,82,410/-, and that the entire tax demand has arisen solely due to denial of credit of tax deducted at source under Form 26QB. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law in sustaining the tax demand arising solely on account of improper filing of Form 26QB by the buyer of the appellant's property, despite the appellant having no control over such compliance and having duly discharged all obligations under the Act. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in uph....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....held that Section 154 cannot be invoked to decide debatable issues or issues requiring examination of facts. The failure to consider the aforesaid case laws renders the impugned order unsustainable in law. 8. The tax effect involved in the present appeal is Rs. 28,55,370/-, being the entire disputed tax demand (excluding interest) raised solely on account of denial of TDS credit, notwithstanding that the returned income and assessed income remain identical. The appeal involves jurisdictional and procedural issues and therefore falls within the exceptions to the monetary limits prescribed by the CBDT. 9. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned appellate order without issuing a draft appellate or....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ctible at the source under [the foregoing provisions of this Chapter], the assessee shall not be called upon to pay the tax himself to the extent to which tax has been deducted from that income. The impugned demand, having arisen solely on account of denial of credit of tax purportedly deducted under Section 194-IA (Form 26QB), is ex facie barred by Section 205 and liable to be quashed. The appellant places reliance on the following precedents: i. Yashpal Sahni v. Rekha Hajarnavis, ACIT (293 ITR 539) (Bom), ii. Hindustan Coca Cola Beverage Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT (293 /TR 226) (SC) iii. CIT v. Relcom (361 ITR 123) (Del), Wherein it has been consistently held that Section 205 creates an absolute bar agai....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....S/250/2025-26/1082958220(1); ii. Quash the Rectification Order dated 06-01-2025 passed under Section 154 of the Act with DIN No. CPC/2425/U2/528092397 as well as the tax demand. iii. Quash the Assessment Order dated 20-10-2024 passed under Section 143(1) of the Act with DIN No. CPC/2425/A2/497705363 iv. Grant such other relief as this Honourable Tribunal may deem fit in the interest of justice." 3. Thus, the main grievance of the appellant is that he was not given proper opportunity to explain his version/put-forth his arguments by way of affording personal hearing despite the specific request. The Learned Authorized Representative (hereinafter in short "Ld.AR") of the appellant has argued by stating that not g....