Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (9) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2022 (9) TMI 835 - AT - Income Tax


Issues Involved:
Appeal against order of CIT (A)-NFAC, Delhi for A.Y. 2010-11 challenging addition based on Form 26AS discrepancies and rejection of rectification application under section 154.

Analysis:

1. Rectification Application Rejection:
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT (A)-NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2010-11. The primary issue revolved around the rejection of the rectification application under section 154 by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs. 40,95,794 based on the difference between the gross receipts as per Form 26AS and the income declared by the assessee. The assessee contended that the credits added did not pertain to them, supported by a certificate from the deductor, IOCL. Despite this, the rectification application was rejected by the Assessing Officer, leading to the appeal before the tribunal.

2. Appeal Dismissal by CIT (A)-NFAC:
The learned CIT (A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, citing reasons related to the lack of full details provided by the assessee to reconcile the difference in gross receipts. The CIT (A) emphasized the need for complete information, including names and PAN details, to consider rectification applications. The dismissal was based on the absence of evidence regarding the submission of additional details by the assessee. The CIT (A) upheld the Assessing Officer's decision to reject the rectification application, leading to further aggrievement by the assessee.

3. Tribunal's Decision and Directions:
Upon hearing both sides and examining the facts presented, the tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments. The tribunal noted that the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager of IOCL, Tirupati, had issued Form 26AS containing payment details, indicating that the addition made by the Assessing Officer did not belong to the assessee. In the interest of justice and considering the totality of the case, the tribunal decided to restore the issue to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to provide the assessee with an opportunity to reconcile the differences and make a decision based on facts and law. Consequently, the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, and the appeal was allowed.

In conclusion, the tribunal's decision to remand the matter to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration based on the provided details showcases a fair approach to resolving the discrepancies in the assessment. The case highlights the importance of providing comprehensive information and giving the assessee a chance to address discrepancies before making additions to the income.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates