Girish Agrawal ORDER
Per Bench:
1. The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [in brevity ld. 'CIT(A)'] dated 26.10.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the 'Act') for assessment year 2014-15. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ACIT, Circle-5(1), Kolkata (in brevity the 'AO') passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 11.01.2023.
2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:
"1. FOR that the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong and unjustified in rejecting the appeal of the Appellant company in respect of credit of TDS of Rs. 14,63,516/-.
2. FOR that the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong and unjustified in passing his appellate order in a summery manner.
3. FOR that the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong and unjustified in not discussing the facts and submissions of the Appellant-company in his appellate order.
4. FOR that the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong and unjustified in ignoring the provisions of section 199 and Rule 37BA.
5. FOR that the appellant craves leave to alter, amend, modify any of the grounds and/or take additional ground/s before or at the time of hearing of this appeal."
3. The brief fact of the case is that the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. The TDS amount of Rs. 14,63,516/- was not credited by the AO in assessment proceedings. The assessee filed a rectification petition u/s 154 of the Act for allowing the TDS during the impugned assessment year. The assessee placed that the related turnover of the TDS was duly declared in the books and the return during the impugned assessment year. But the parties have taken this bill/payment in the next assessment year i.e. for AY 2015-16. The TDS was also credited for AY 2015-16 in 26AS but the assessee has not claimed this TDS whereas the assessee claimed in the year wherein the income has been declared. But ld. AO had not accepted the assessee's submission and upheld his non-allowability of TDS as per the order u/s 143(3)/ 154 of the Act. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) had upheld views of ld. AO. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before us.
4. Ld. A/R first invited our attention that the assessee has declared turnover amounting to Rs. 47,34,33,360/- in the impugned assessment year and after deduction amounting to Rs. 24,69,62,555/- and balance amount is Rs. 22,64,70,795/- and related TDS was Rs. 45,29,415/-. But the same TDS is not reflected in Form-26AS because the party had not debited this amount in their books. Ld. AO had not allowed this TDS credit in this year against the assessee and the order was passed. Ld. AO had relied on the order of the Coordinate Bench Chennai ITAT in the case of M/s. Archean Realty Pvt. Ltd. (Now known as M/s. Archean Industries Pvt. Ltd.) vs. DCIT in ITA No. 790/CHNY/2020 order dated 31.05.2023. The relevant paragraph is inserted as below:
"9. In so far as denial for credit for taxes for AY 2015-16, we find that as per the provisions of Sec.199(3) of the Act r.w.r.37BA(l) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, credit for TDS shall be given for assessment year for which such income is assessable. Since, the income pertains to transfer of property is assessable for AY 2015-16, the assessee has rightly claimed for credit for taxes for AY 2015-16 only. Therefore, we direct th........