2022 (3) TMI 1231 - AT - Income Tax

Addition on account of difference as per statement shown in Form 26AS and the total receipt shown by the assessee - difference qua the statement shown in Form 26AS and total receipt shown by the assessee - AO made addition for want of proper verification - CIT(A) deleted the addition by accepting the version that total value of contract - HELD THAT - We find that the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition after verification of bank account, contract amount which was received by the assessee on the basis of running bills. We find that ld. CIT(A) arrived on a correct conclusion after verification of receipt ultimately credited d in the bank account of the assessee for the year under consideration. In our view the order of ld CIT(A) does not require any further inference, which we affirm. In the result, the ground of appeal raised by the revenue is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Discrepancy in payment received as per 26AS and as per books.
2. Failure to provide necessary confirmation of third parties related to TDS deduction.

Analysis:
1. The appeal by the Revenue contested the ld. CIT(A)'s order regarding the discrepancy in payment received as per 26AS and as per books for the assessment year 2013-14. The Assessing Officer noted differences in payments received from two parties, Met Trade India Ltd. and Jindal Buildsys Ltd., as per 26AS and books of accounts. The Assessing Officer issued a show cause notice to the assessee, who failed to provide necessary confirmation of TDS deductions by the parties. Consequently, an addition of ?3.74 Crore was made by the Assessing Officer based on the discrepancies observed.

2. The assessee contended before the ld. CIT(A) that the differences arose due to TDS deductions made by the parties, specifically Met Trade India Ltd., at the time of raising bills and making payments. The assessee provided detailed submissions, including contractual agreements, ledger extracts, bills, and payment details to support their claim. Despite repeated attempts to obtain confirmation from the parties, no response was received. The ld. CIT(A) considered the submissions and remand report, concluding that the addition made by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable due to the bonafide nature of the assessee's case.

3. The Tribunal reviewed the entire case, noting the discrepancy in payments as per Form 26AS and the assessee's books. The ld. CIT(A) had deleted the addition after thorough verification of the bank account, contract amounts, and running bills received by the assessee. The Tribunal affirmed the ld. CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the order did not require further inference. Consequently, the appeal by the Revenue was dismissed, upholding the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in favor of the assessee.