9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (8) TMI 1040 - AT - Income TaxAddition in the income of the assessee by treating as income from other sources - Additions based on TDS form 26AS - addition of commission income under the head business/profession - as per the assessee the said amount was earned by the assessee on account of commission and the same has been reflected in Form 26AS - HELD THAT - We are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal of the assessee and in case the additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) are sustained then in that eventuality the same tantamount to double addition and not permissible under the law. As per the record the assessee was not having any other income other than the LIC commission and post office commission and the TDS of the same has also been deducted on the said income which is reflected in Form 26AS therefore considering these peculiar facts and circumstances we direct the A.O. to delete the addition.- Appeal of the assessee stands allowed.
Issues:
- Challenge to the order of the ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of the ld. AO in passing the order U/s 154 of the IT Act, 1961. - Dispute regarding the consideration of business income as 'income from other sources' leading to double addition. - Non-consideration of the submission of the assessee by the ld. CIT(A). - Confirmation of addition based on the allegation of filing the wrong ITR form resulting in a miscarriage of justice. Analysis: 1. The appellant filed an appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A) regarding the assessment year 2017-18. The primary issue revolved around the ld. CIT(A) confirming the action of the ld. AO in passing the order U/s 154 of the IT Act, 1961. The appellant contended that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming this action, leading to the first ground of appeal. 2. The core dispute centered on the treatment of business income as 'income from other sources,' resulting in a double addition of ?6,49,849. The appellant argued that the income was earned through commission and was correctly declared under the head 'business/profession.' Despite the appellant's submissions, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition. The appellant emphasized that the only income sources were LIC and post office commissions, with TDS deductions reflecting in Form 26AS, warranting the deletion of the addition. 3. Another issue raised was the non-consideration of the appellant's submissions by the ld. CIT(A). The appellant asserted that all income and expenditure related to the business were accurately declared, and the ld. CIT(A) unjustly dismissed the appeal without proper assessment. 4. Additionally, the appellant challenged the confirmation of the addition based on the allegation of filing the wrong ITR form, leading to a perceived miscarriage of justice. The appellant clarified that the ITR-4 form was appropriate for an individual engaged in business and profession, aligning with the nature of the appellant's insurance and saving schemes commission business income. The appellant argued against the presumption of opting for a presumptive scheme, emphasizing the accurate declaration of income and expenses in the ITR. 5. After a thorough review of the contentions and evidence, the ITAT concluded that the ld. CIT(A) was unjustified in dismissing the appellant's appeal. The tribunal found that sustaining the additions would result in a double addition, which is impermissible under the law. Given the specific circumstances and the absence of other income sources, the ITAT directed the AO to delete the addition, ultimately allowing the appeal in favor of the assessee.
|
