##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH

MUMBAI

BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

&

SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR,

ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.5288/Mum/2025

(Assessment Year :2023-24

Apurva Ashwin Desai Vs. Addl./JCIT(A)-2,

601, Sanket Apartment Chennai

Central Avenue ITO Ward 27(3)(1),

14^th Road Mumbai

M J Market

Mumbai (E)

Mumbai

PAN/GIR No.AABPD2306D

(Appellant) .. (Respondent

Assessee by Ms. Monika Jain on behalf of

Shri D. M. Shah

Revenue by Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr.

DR

Date of Hearing 27/01/2026

Date of Pronouncement 28/01/2026

/ O R D E R

आदेश

PER AMIT SHUKLA (J.M):

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against

the order dated 27.06.2025 passed by the learned Addl./JCIT(A)-

2, Chennai, arising out of rectification proceedings under section

154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2023-

24. The grievance of the assessee lies in a narrow compass and

relates solely to denial of credit of tax deducted at source, which

2

ITA No.5288/Mum/2025

Apurva Ashwin Desai

according to the assessee stands duly reflected in Form No. 26AS

and is fully reconcilable with the income disclosed in the return.

2. Briefly stated, the assessee had filed the return of income

for the year under consideration on 30.07.2023, which was

processed under section 143(1). Since proper credit of TDS was

not granted by the CPC, an application under section 154 was

moved. Though an order came to be passed on 28.05.2024

determining the total income at nil, the credit of TDS was still

not allowed. In appeal, the assessee placed on record the

computation of income, Form No. 26AS, and complete

particulars relating to rental income as well as sale of two

residential flats, contending that there was no factual dispute

whatsoever insofar as deduction and deposit of tax at source was

concerned.

3. The learned first appellate authority, while dealing with the

rectification appeal, recorded certain observations with reference

to Form No. 26AS and the computation of income furnished by

the assessee, and on that basis proceeded to hold that the issue

involved a mismatch requiring factual verification and therefore

fell outside the purview of section 154. The relevant portion of

the appellate order, as relied upon, is reproduced hereunder:

“6.2 During the appellate proceedings, the appellant submitted his

reply and reiterated the statement of facts and furnished the copy

of rectification order, computation of income etc for the period

under consideration.

3

ITA No.5288/Mum/2025

Apurva Ashwin Desai

6.3 Vide grounds of this appeal, the appellant has raised objection

towards the non credit of the TDS while processing the return of

income. On perusal of the Form 26AS and the computation of

income as furnished by the appellant it is observed that the TDS

credit of Rs. 8,33,184/- by the HSBC on the rent payments is

found to be in order. The relevant portion of the 26AS is

reproduced as below-

On further perusal of the Form 26AS it was observed that the

appellant has sold two properties for the sale consideration of Rs.

1,25,00,000/- and Rs 85,00,000/-

4

ITA No.5288/Mum/2025

Apurva Ashwin Desai

6.4 However, on examining the computation of income filed, it is

noticed that the appellant has declared the sale consideration for

both transactions as 1,25,00,000 each, which is inconsistent with

the values reported in Form 26AS. Specifically, the second

transaction, reported by the deductor as 85,00,000 in the TDS

return (Form 2008), has been declared by the appellant in the

computation at 1,25,00,000, resulting in a mismatch.

This discrepancy raises suspicion that whether the entire TDS

credit claimed actually pertains to income that has been correctly

offered to tax. Therefore, the correctness of the TDS claim, hinges

upon factual reconciliation of the declared income and the actual

transaction values.

4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the

material available on record. On a careful consideration of the

factual matrix, it is evident that the assessee had received rental

inco