2023 (1) TMI 1073 - AT - Income Tax

Addition u/s. 68 - difference in the returned income and assessed income - HELD THAT - It is evident that the assessee was working with M/s. Pfizer Ltd. and had taken voluntary retirement. On a perusal of Form 26AS, the gross total income of the assessee was declared as Rs.63,58,458/- and the assessee has filed his original return of income dated 26.08.2015, declaring net income of Rs.45,39,698/- and revised his return of income declaring Rs.23,26,687/- and Rs.24,26,682/- in his second revised return dated 17.02.2016. The allegation by the lower authorities that the assessee has fraudulently claimed higher refund by filing the revised return twice is not controverted by the assessee either by way of return submission or by producing any documentary evidence in support of his stand. The assessee has failed to rebut the addition made by the A.O. and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). A.O. had issued notice u/s. 133(6) to M/s. Pfizer Ltd. which had replied stating that the assessee has received Rs.63,75,681/- during the impugned year. The assessee has failed to establish the difference amount specified in Form 26AS and the returns filed by the assessee. Though several opportunities have been given to the assessee, the assessee has failed to furnish any documentary evidence for rebuttal. Thus assessee has nothing to controvert the view of the lower authorities in making the addition u/s. 68 of the Act as unexplained cash credit . Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act and levy of interest under section 234B.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The assessee contested the addition made under section 68 of the Act on the variance between returned and assessed income, totaling Rs.4,00,904, and also disputed the interest levied under section 234B. Since there was no representation from the assessee, the appeal was heard based on the Departmental Representative's arguments and available records.

The assessee filed the return of income declaring different amounts on various occasions, leading to scrutiny by the Assessing Officer (A.O.). The A.O. added a substantial sum under section 68 as unexplained cash credits due to discrepancies in the salary income declared by the assessee. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) upheld this addition, along with the interest and penalty proceedings initiated by the A.O., as the assessee failed to substantiate the differences.

Despite the assessee's contentions, both the A.O. and the Commissioner found the lack of documentary evidence supporting the declared income differences. The A.O. issued notices and received responses from the employer confirming the actual salary received, which significantly varied from the amounts declared by the assessee. The Departmental Representative argued that the assessee intentionally revised the income to claim higher refunds, leading to the discrepancy.

Upon review, the Tribunal noted the failure of the assessee to counter the authorities' findings or provide substantial evidence to justify the discrepancies in income declarations. The Tribunal found no fault in the lower authorities' decision to treat the unexplained cash credits as income, as the assessee could not refute the evidence presented. Despite multiple opportunities, the assessee could not substantiate the differences in income declarations, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision and dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee, emphasizing the lack of evidence to challenge the addition made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act.