ORDER

PER : ASTHA CHANDRA, JM

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] dated 22/01/2025 pertaining to the Assessment Year (“AY”) 2019-20.

2. Briefly stated, the facts are that assessee is an Association of Persons (AOP). For A.Y. 2019-20, assessee filed its return of income on 15/10/2019 declaring total income of ₹2,78,41,125/-, which was subsequently revised on 16/01/2020. Return was processed by the Central Processing Centre (“CPC”)/ Assessing Officer (“AO”) u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) vide intimation order, dated 10/07/2020 wherein TDS credit of ₹ 27,14,806/- claimed by the assessee was not given and also interest u/s. 234A was charged. The assessee filed a rectification application u/s. 154 which was rejected by the Ld.AO/CPC vide order, dated 08/09/2020 without any modification.

3. Aggrieved by such order of Ld.AO/CPC u/s. 154 of the Act, assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC and contended that Ld.AO/CPC has incorrectly denied the credit of TDS to the assessee of ₹ 27,14,806/- on the ground the relevant data was not populated in Form No. 26AS as on the date of processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act. Before the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, relying on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kartik Vijay Sonavane and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Satwant Singh Sanghera vs. ACIT [WP(C) No. 13765/2024 & CM Appl. 57690/2024, dated 01/10/2024], assessee contented that the deductor i.e. Mumbai WTR Pvt. Ltd. while making payment to the assessee, had duly deducted the amount of TDS but failed to deposit the same into the Government account and therefore, it was open for the Department to recover the tax from deductor and the credit of TDS ought to have been granted to the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, however, confirmed the action of the Ld.AO/CPC in not providing the TDS credit observing that the issue in question is a contentious/debatable issue and does not fall within the ambit of “mistake apparent from the record” u/s. 154 of the Act. The Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC further observed that assessee cannot use proceedings u/s. 154 to file an appeal against the order passed u/s.143(1) of the Act, particularly when remedy sought against the adjustments so made require elaborate discussion and where two views are possible. He, accordingly, dismissed the ground of appeal relating to TDS credit raised by the assessee before him treating the same as infructuous. As regards the ground of charging of interest u/s. 234A, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC directed the Ld.AO/CPC to delete the interest. The relevant findings and observations of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC are reproduced below:-

“6.0 I have given my due consideration to the submissions. There are two issues for adjudication. The first issue relates to TDS credit and the second one is about interest levied u/s 234A. The CPC made these adjustments in the intimation u/s 143(1) against which the assessee filed a rectification petition which were not considered favourably.

7.0 As regards the issue of TDS credit, it is germane to note that CPC provides credit subject to its availability in form 26AS and in terms of section 199 read with rule 37BA. In the case on hand, the CPC did not provide the TDS credit of Rs 27,14,806 as the relevant data was not populated in the form 26AS as on the date of processing the return u/s 143(1) of the Act. As per CBDT’s instruction dated 01.06.2015, TDS credit is given to a person only if it is paid to the Central Government. It was only in the rectification petition submitted that the assessee brought out the fact that deductor MUMBAI WTR PVT LTD Pvt Ltd deducted the tax at source, but failed to remit the same as per law resulting mismatch between TDS credit as per the claim made in the ITR and form 26AS. The CPC did not modify the intimation and passed the order u/s 154 reiterating its earlier tax liabil