TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (8) TMI 618
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t received and Rs. 20,79,791/- in respect of the purchase of motor vehicle. The case was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issuance of notice u/s 148 dated 26.03.2024, which remained unresponded by the assessee. Notice u/s 142(1) and reminder noticed dated 11.11.2024, 20.12.2024 and 30.12.2024 were issued by the assessment unit seeking details in respect of the aforesaid mismatch. (ii) Assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer, copy of rented property's lease deed dated 05.02.2020 executed between the assessee Shri Tejpratap Yadav, his mother Smt. Mradula Yadav and sister Smt. Deepali Yadav as co-owners/landlord and land ladies of the property with the tenant State Bank of India, Karhal, Dist- Mainpuri (U.P) for the duration from 26.09.2014 to 25.09.2024. Apart from the PAN no. of the assessee, the PAN No. of co-sharers/ assessee's mother Smt. Mradula Yadav and Smt. Deepali Yadav were also mentioned over the sale deed and the rent was payable to all the three lessors jointly by the lessee Bank (SBI). The appellant assessee along with aforesaid two co-owners received rental income of Rs. 40,62,500/- from the lessee State Bank of India in their joint bank account. Assessee, fur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....usion that income as per alleged information did not escape assessment. In such a situation nothing survive. Consequently entire order is liable to be quashed. The Id AO does not have jurisdiction to assess any other income or to restrict the amount of TDS in such a case. The Id AO arbitrarily restricted the amount of TDS to 1/3 of total TDS deducted out of the income of the Appellant, which is totally incorrect. 2- Because, on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law and on facts in upholding the validity of reassessment proceedings, ignoring the fact that no income had escaped assessment. Provisions of section 147 were wrongly invoked. Entire reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed. 3- BECAUSE, upon the facts and in overall circumstances of the case the Id CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the approval under section 151 of the Act was granted by the specified authority on totally incorrect facts. Since no addition was made by the Id AO, this itself prove that the initiation of the reassessment proceedings was void-ab-initio, patently illegal and bad in law and thus entire proceedings are liable to be quashed. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....advertently deducted and posted entire TDS of Rs. 4,06,250/- solely against the PAN of the assessee only. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee had enclosed a letter issued by the Bank Branch Manager, stating that the lease agreement was with the 3 co-owners and due to inadvertent mistake of the bank, the TDS of Rs. 4,06,250/- was posted solely on the PAN of the assessee. It was further submitted that both the co-owners did not claim TDS in their respective ITRs. Assessee also submitted an affidavit on behalf of and signed by the other two co-owners in this regard and also submitted the copies of their ITRs for the year under consideration, but the revenue authority have arbitrarily disallowed assessee's rightful claim u/s 199(1) of the Act. Prayed to allow the credit of the remaining amount of TDS paid by the assessee. 8. Ld Sr DR for the respondent revenue has supported the impugned order. 9. It is worth mentioning relevant law applicable to the facts of the case in hand. Section 199 of the Act, under the head "Credit for tax deducted" reads as under: "Credit for tax deducted. 199. (1) Any deduction made in accordance with the foregoing provision....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rce in the name of the person in whose name credit is shown in the information relating to deduction of tax referred to in sub-rule (1) and shall keep the declaration in his safe custody. (3) xxxxxxxxxxx (3A) xxxxxxxxxxx (4) xxxxxxxxxxx" 11. There are certain undisputed facts. These facts are that the whole TDS of Rs. 4,06,250/- was deducted against the PAN of the assessee. Assessee with two co-owners i.e. his mother Smt. Mradula Yadav and his sister Smt. Deepali Yadav received the rental income in their joint bank account. The assessee and the two co-owners have shown their respective 1/3rd share as income from the house property in their ITRs for the relevant A.Y. 2020-21. According to the lease agreement dated 26.09.2014, which is part of assessee's paper book from page 27 to 43, the details of the PAN Nos. of the assessee and the two co-owners are expressly mentioned over it. The tenant Bank (SBI), inadvertently posted the entire TDS of Rs. 4,06,250/- solely against the PAN of assessee instead of showing the proportional (1/3rd) i.e. Rs. 1,35,417/- of the three co-sharers as mentioned by Assessing Officer at page 5 of assessment order. The two co-o....