• twitter-icon
Unlimited Tax Return Filing


Jaipur ITAT Allows Section 201(1) Relief Despite Manual Filing of Form 26A

Jaipur ITAT's Order In the Case of Rashmi Singh Vs ITO

The Jaipur Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) said that manual filing of a Chartered Accountant-certified Form 26A rather than electronic filing is only a procedural lapse and cannot be a reason to refuse relief under the provisions of Section 201(1) of the Income Tax Act when the seller has earlier released the tax liability.

The taxpayer Rashmi Singh purchased an immovable property for Rs. 66,20,435 without deducting TDS at 1% under section 194-IA. The assessing officer considered her as an “assessee in default” and raised a total demand of Rs. 1,15,194, including TDS of Rs. 66,204 and interest of Rs. 48,990. The CIT(A) confirmed the demand.

It was undisputed that the seller had already fulfilled the tax liability, and the assessee had provided Form 26A, which was duly certified by a Chartered Accountant. However, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] refused the relief because the form was submitted manually instead of electronically, as required under Rule 31ACB.

The representative of the taxpayer said that the defect was only procedural and the substantive requirement was fulfilled. The counsel of the revenue supported the orders of the lower authorities.

The two-member bench, Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member) and Kuldip Singh (Judicial Member), said that, “When the assessee was show-caused by the AO for not deducting TDS on the amount of sale consideration paid by her, she has filed Form 26A manually/offline mode being ignorant of the rules that the same is required to be filed electronically. It is a settled principle of law that filing Form 26A manually and not electronically is a procedural lapse based on which the assessee cannot be penalised.”

Also Read: Delhi ITAT Limits Section 68 Addition to ₹5 Lakh on ₹1.80 Crore Hospital Cash Deposits During Demonetisation

The tribunal said that Form 26A specified that the seller had earlier released the tax obligation. Under the proviso to Section 201(1), it granted the taxpayer protection and deleted the demand and permitted the appeal.

Case TitleRashmi Singh Vs ITO
Case No.ITA No: 694/JPR/2026
For the PetitionerSh. Deepak Sharma
For the RespondentsMrs. Aarti Rawat
Jaipur ITATRead Order

Disclaimer:- "All the information given is from credible and authentic resources and has been published after moderation. Any change in detail or information other than fact must be considered a human error. The blog we write is to provide updated information. You can raise any query on matters related to blog content. Also, note that we don’t provide any type of consultancy so we are sorry for being unable to reply to consultancy queries. Also, we do mention that our replies are solely on a practical basis and we advise you to cross verify with professional authorities for a fact check."

Published by Arpit Kulshrestha
Arpit Kulshrestha seeks higher interests in financial services, taxation, GST, I-T, etc. Writes articles with depth knowledge and is extensive for the same. The resources provide effective articles for the products of SAG infotech which provides taxation and IT software. Writing from observations and researching makes his articles virtuous.
View more posts
SAGINFOTECH PRODUCTS

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Latest Posts

Tax Offer in 2026

Powering India's Taxation Experts with Innovation

Upto 20% Off
Tax, ROC/MCA, XBRL, Payroll, Online GST

Limited Offer, Hurry

New Offer in 2026

Upto 20% Discount on Tax Software

    Select Product*

    Genius Software