2014 (3) TMI 358 - AT - Income Tax

Works contractor Interest and contract receipts not disclosed TDS certificate not received Held that - The assessee has not been able to show that at any stage, that he has taken up the matter either with the bank or with the contractees for rectification of the excess deducting of tax at source the Counsel has made an alternate prayer to remit the file back to the Assessing Officer for verification of the facts it is not appropriate to grant second innings to the assessee for mere verification of the TDS amounts from the bank or the contractees - The assessee could have done this exercise with due diligence in the first stage itself Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Assessment of undisclosed interest and contract receipts for AY 2009-10.

Analysis:
The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2009-10 where the assessee, a works contractor, had filed his return of income declaring Rs. 5,88,460/-. However, upon scrutiny, it was found that certain interest and contract receipts were not disclosed accurately. The assessee had declared interest income from a bank as Rs. 52,510/-, but the revenue authorities found it to be Rs. 2,45,091/- as per Form 26AS. Similarly, there were discrepancies in the contract receipts from two parties compared to what was disclosed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made additions based on the un-disclosed interest and contract receipts. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the additions, leading to the assessee filing a second appeal before the Tribunal.

During the appeal, the assessee contended that there was an arithmetical mistake in the bank interest amount and that the CIT(Appeals) did not apply his mind independently. The Revenue argued that the CIT(Appeals) decision was well-reasoned and detailed, requiring no interference. The Tribunal noted that the assessee did not take steps to rectify the alleged excess TDS deductions with the bank or contractees. The assessee's alternate prayer for remitting the file back for verification was rejected as the assessee should have done this diligently earlier. It was observed that the interest was received by the assessee, and the contract receipts were admitted to be omitted by the assessee. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed for lack of merit.

The Tribunal emphasized that if any amount is taxed in the current assessment year, the Assessing Officer should ensure that the same receipts are not assessed in subsequent years. The order was pronounced on February 21, 2014, in Chennai.