Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Veeraswamy Subramaniam ... vs Acit, Ncc-1,, Coimbatore on 4 March, 2026
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, 'ए' ायपीठ, चे ई
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'A' BENCH, CHENNAI
ी एस.एस. िव ने रिव, ाियक सद एवं ी एस.आर. रगु नाथॎ, लेखा सद के सम
Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member &
Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3187/Chny/2025
िनधारण वष/Assessment Year: 2023-24
Veeraswamy Subramaniam Sairam, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of
C-320, Manchester Grand, MG Road, Income Tax,
Avarampalayam 641 006. Non Corporate Circle 4,
Coimbatore.
[PAN:AIAPS4787Q]
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( थ /Respondent)
अपीलाथ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate
थ की ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. T. Mythili, JCIT
सु नवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 02.02.2026
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 04.03.2026
आदे श /O R D E R
PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2023-24.
2. The assessee raised 10 grounds of appeal amongst which only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the order passed under section 154 of the Income 2 I.T.A. No.3187/Chny/25 Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short] in denying TDS credit in the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. At the outset, we note that an immovable property jointly owned by the assessee and his wife, Mrs. Kalaiselvi holding 50% share, was sold for a sale consideration of ₹.2,71,00,000/-. The assessee is duly disclosed his proportionate share of the sale value and the resulting capital gain in his return of income which is at page 52 of the paper book. It was contended that the buyer erroneously filed 26QB by attributing the entire sale consideration and total TDS solely to the assessee's PAN. We note that while processing the return of income, the CPC, Bengaluru restricted the TDS credit to an extent of ₹.1,35,500/- being 50% of total tax deducted on the ground that the credit can only be given in proportionate to income offered to tax, consequently, the tax demand of ₹.31,04,350/- including interest which was confirmed vide order under section 154 of the Act. A serious contention was raised by contending that the entire TDS credit to an extent of ₹.2,71,000/- was actually paid to Government exchequer which is reflecting in Form 26AS at page 119 of paper book. It is pertinent to note that assessee's wife did not claim any TDS in her return of income which is evident from page 151 of the paper book showing no claim under her PAN. Further, it is noted that the 3 I.T.A. No.3187/Chny/25 assessee corrected the discrepancy in the annual information statement for short AIS, which was ignored during the course of processing the return of income of assessee. Therefore, considering the submissions of assessee, material on record and in the interest of justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to allow full credit of TDS to the assessee as reflected in form 26AS, otherwise, would result in double tax burden or loss of legitimate tax credits, which is admittedly no loss to the Respondent Revenue. Thus, ground Nos. 1 to 10 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 04th March, 2026 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) (S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 04.03.2026 Vm/- आदे श की ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant, 2. थ / Respondent,
3. आयकर आयु /CIT, Chennai/Madurai/Coimbatore/Salem
4. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR &
5. गाड फाईल/GF.