2020 (6) TMI 825 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of balance commission - assessee had shown commission receipt of amount less that as per TDS certificates total commission receipt - assessee s second round of appeal before this Tribunal - HELD THAT - Form 26AS is maintained by the Income-tax Department. In such a scenario, in the interest of justice and since it is second round of assessee s appeal, and keeping in mind that there should be finality of the issue as deciding as infra. First of all, Form 16A is generated by M/s. Unipay Marketing Pvt. Ltd, which is payer and the assessee who is the payee has no control over it. Even if the amount is paid it should have been accounted for in assessee s bank account, which is not the case of the AO. Simply because there is difference in the claim of assessee in respect of TDS credit and the corresponding income, the AO has made the addition which cannot be accepted when the Form 26AS gives a different picture, which also assessee has no control; and 26AS Forms are generated by the Income-tax department and the figures come close to the assessee s contention. Therefore, assessee s income should be taken as Rs. 3,95,030/-, which is shown in Form 26AS (downloaded from the Income tax Department website) and she should be given TDS credit of only Rs. 39,569/- as reflected in the Form 26AS - direct the AO to adopt these figures and compute the taxable income of assessee accordingly as per law. Unexplained cash credit - As submitted money was deposited by four persons on four (4) different occasions into two different bank accounts of the assessee and that it was not her money, but, only she has collected their money from those four (4) different parties named in the assessment order for on-ward transferring to M/s UniPay - HELD THAT - As noted that though she filed notarized Affidavits of the two parties who claimed that they had deposited amount in assessee s bank account, but the ld. AR failed to show by means of any evidence to suggest that the money deposited in assessee s bank account was used only as pass through entry through her bank account and thereafter this money has flown out of the assessee s bank account to M/s. Unipay 2u Marketing P.Ltd. AR failed to do so by adducing any evidence. Therefore, addition of Rs. 5,92,100/- cannot be faulted as such. However, taking into consideration the fact that this is second round of appeal and since we have already held that the assessee has received an amount of Rs. 3,95,030/- as her income while deciding the ground no. 2, therefore, this amount should be telescoped with the amount deposited in the bank account of assessee. This ground of assessee is partly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Proper opportunity of hearing not given by the ld. CIT(A)
2. Addition of Rs. 11,16,426/- on account of balance commission
3. Addition of Rs. 5,92,100/- on account of unexplained cash credit

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed due to the ld. CIT(A) not providing proper hearing opportunity, which was dismissed as not pressed.
2. The addition of Rs. 11,16,426/- on account of balance commission was challenged. The AO added this amount due to a discrepancy in commission receipts shown by the assessee. The tribunal noted that the Form 16A and Form 26AS reflected different figures. Form 26AS, being maintained by the Income-tax Department, was considered more reliable. The tribunal directed the AO to adopt the figures from Form 26AS, resulting in the taxable income being computed accordingly.
3. The addition of Rs. 5,92,100/- on account of unexplained cash credit was also contested. The AO found unexplained cash deposits in the assessee's bank accounts. The assessee claimed the money belonged to other parties for onward transfer, but failed to provide evidence. The tribunal reduced the addition to Rs. 1,97,070/- considering the income already determined in the previous issue. The AO was directed to adjust the undisclosed income accordingly.

The tribunal considered the extraordinary situation of the COVID-19 pandemic and excluded lockdown days for pronouncing the judgment. The appeal was partly allowed based on the detailed analysis and evidence presented during the proceedings.