IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “J (SMC)” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM &

MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 39/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21)

Dhananjay Sanjiv Rawal, Central Processing Centre, D-4, Iconic, 18, Arthur Bunder Income Tax Department, Vs.

Road, Colaba, Mumbai-400005 Bangalore-560500 PAN: AGPPR5062A Appellant) : Respondent Appellant /Assessee by : Shri Dhananjay Rawal, AR Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Asif Karmali, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)- Delhi [for short 'the CIT(A)] dated 27.03.2023 for the AY 2020-21. The only issue contended by the assessee through various grounds is that the AO has not been given the credit towards tax deducted on the payments received by the assessee for the reason that the same is not appear in the Form-26AS.

2. The assessee an individual is a creative director by profession and filed the return of income for AY 2020-21 on 14.12.2020 declaring a total income of Rs. 16,81,030/-. The assessee in the return has claimed a TDS credit of Rs. 2,83,650/-. The return was processed by CPC under section 143(1) and in the intimation under section 143(1) dated 23.04.2021, the credit for TDS claimed was restricted to Rs. 2,13,150/- thereby short granting the TDS credit to the tune of Rs. 70,500/-. Aggrieved the assessee filed further appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the details and allow the credit of TDS as per Form- 26AS against the income of the assessee. The assessee is before the Tribunal contending that the TDS credit cannot be denied merely for the reason that the same is not reflected in Form 26AS filed by the payer.

3. There is a considerable delay of 583 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed an affidavit in this regard stating that the assessee being not aware of the process appellate remedy, instead had approached the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax by filing the letter seeking intervention in the matter. It is further stated by the assessee in the affidavit that the PCIT has clarified that he will not be in a position to resolve the issue and directed the assessee to approach the Tribunal against the order of the CIT(A). The assessee has accordingly submitted that substantial time has elapsed in pursuing this alternate course of remedy to get relief and that there is no wilful on the part of the assessee. Therefore the assessee prayed that the delay may be condoned.

4. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the view that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Therefore following the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST.Katiji & Ors., (167 ITR 471) (SC) we condone the delay of 583 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication.

5. The assessee submitted that the entire income received from the parties who have deducted the impugned tax has already been offered as income while filing the return and therefore, the assessee is entitled to claim credit for the tax deducted there from. The assessee further submitted that all the relevant documents evidencing that the payments have been received net of TDS have been submitted before the lower authorities which have not been considered. The assessee also submitted that he has sent repeated reminders to the parties who have deducted the tax seeking clarification as to why the TDS is not appearing in Form 26AS though the same is withheld in the payments to the assessee. The assessee submitted that no response has been received from the parties and that he cannot be held responsible for the non-compliance on the part of the deductor. The assessee further submitted that the he cannot be punished for a non-compliance o