आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण (cid:13)य(cid:14)य पीठ मुंबई म(cid:21)(cid:22)

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

SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM I.T.A. No.6638/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21)

Nisar Ebrahim Ookabhoy, ITO, Westbay Apts. Aakar Bhawan Flat 1704, Jarimari Road, Vs. Ward 16(3)(1), Bandra (W), Mumbai - 400050 Mumbai-400020 PAN: AAAPO0959N Revenue-(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:7) / Appellant Assessee- (cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:6)(cid:7) / Respondent :

Assessee by : Shri Sunil Nahta Revenue by : Shri Sajeev Bhagar, Addl. CIT DR Date of Hearing 22.12.2025 :

Date of Pronouncement : 24.12.2025

O R D E R

Per Arun Khodpia, AM:

The captioned appeal is filed by the ASSESEE, directed against the order of Addl. / Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Surat [for short “ld. CIT(A)”] dated 19.08.2025 for the AY 2020-21, which in turn arises from the assessment order passed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 25.11.2021 for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21, issued by the CPC, Bangaluru.

2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the present appeal are culled out as under:

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal in merit.

2. The learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting circumstantial evidence as detailed below in support of its claim that such deduction was towards tax deducted at source:

(a) Copy of leave and license agreement registered with Sub-Registrar's office which defines the monthly rent (b) Copy of Bank Statement evidencing receipt of rent after deduction of Tax of source.

3. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that leave and license, agreement does not provide for any other deduction from monthly rent payable to appellant.:

4. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that your appellant was obliged to raise the issue before jurisdictional assessing officer or CIT (TDS) exercising the jurisdiction over the deductor.

5. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that your appellant cannot be expected to produce Form 16A when deductor has not deposited the tax deducted at source.

6. The learned CIT(A) further erred in holding that payment of TDS is mätter of bilateral commercial dispute between the parties, and that the appellant cannot escape legal tax liability. Since legally deductor is acting as govt. agent for collection of tax, no liability can be enforced on appellant for deductor's failure.

7. The learned CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that Section 205 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 bars direct demand on assessee where tax is deductible under the provisions of the Act.

3. Briefly stated, the assessee during the year under consideration had let out his ownership flat to M/s Kyta Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. under a leave and license agreement dated 05.10.2018 for 36 months. According to the terms of said agreement the assessee was entitled to a license fee of Rs. 1,20,000/- p.m. from 6^th October 2018 to 5^th October 2019, Rs. 1,26,000/- from 6^th October

2019 to 5^th October 2020 subject to tax deduction of source @10%. The assessee received the License fee after deduction of the tax from licensee for Rs. 13,28,000 [1,20,000 x 6 + 1,26,000 x 6 = 14,76,000 – 1,47,600 (TDS 10%)]. As per bank statement of the assessee and details of License Fee received by the assessee (licensor), the Licensee though had deducted the withholding tax of Rs. 1,47,600/- but had deposited only Rs. 36,000/- from the amount deducted in exchequers account, remaining amount was not deposited for Rs. 1,11,600/-, so the same was not reflected in form 26AS of the assessee. Central Processing Centre, Bangaluru has processed the return of assessee and had declined the claim of assessee for shortfall of TDS for Rs. 1,11, 600/- which is not reflated in Form 26AS on account of failure of the payment by the deductor / licensee.

4. Matter carried by way of an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who did not doubted the facts of the case but have rej