2016 (5) TMI 1420 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of suppressed receipts - Additions on the basis of 26AS statement - Held that - The issue is no more res integra in view of the Coordinate Bench decision in the case of ITO vs. Shri Basant Kumar 2015 (11) TMI 1127 - ITAT DELHI were on identical facts held that there is no material to come to the conclusion that assessee ever received any such coupons or payments nor the same are reflected in his books of accounts or bank statements. The fact that these payments are made by coupons and vouchers etc. can also not be put against the assessee since the assessee never received the same and there is no evidence to the contrary. Apparently entire confusion has started from the fact that perhaps as a measure of abundant caution Vodafone deducted tax at source in respect of the vouchers etc and for whatever reasons stated the name of distributor as collective recipient of entire sum. On these facts in our considered view learned CIT(A) was quite justified in deleting the impugned addition. We approve his conclusions and decline to interfere in the matter. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for Assessment Year 2009-10.

Analysis:
The appellant, a Main Distributor of M/s Vodafone, filed a return of income declaring total income. The Assessing Officer (AO) noted discrepancies in income received from contracts and commission from M/s Vodafone, with TDS amounts deleted under sections 194C and 194H. The AO found discrepancies in the P&L account and requested evidence for expenditure claims. The appellant argued that the amounts received were reimbursements to Assistant Distributors, not subject to TDS. The AO disagreed, making the full addition of the undisclosed income from M/s Vodafone. The Ld.CIT(A) granted relief, stating that certain amounts were reimbursements and not profits for the appellant. The Ld.CIT(A) clarified issues through a recasted P&L account. The Ld.CIT(A) also noted that certain incentives were paid directly by M/s Vodafone and not routed through the appellant, thus not constituting the appellant's income.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Ld.CIT(A)'s order, citing a previous Coordinate Bench decision in favor of the assessee on similar facts. The Tribunal upheld the Ld.CIT(A)'s order and dismissed the Revenue's appeal. The decision was consistent with previous rulings, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.