9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 436X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from Sparsh Technologies (PB-21) shows that they have not furnished individual cheque/ transfer details of the employee on the ground that that same is not traceable in the bank statement. Therefore, the gross salary paid by them and claimed to be at ₹ 87,77,543 is not ascertainable. However, this could be ascertained from individual ledger account of salary or from the payroll registers maintained by the employee. Further, the 26as part And B are not verified by the AO as the assessee has only submitted Form No. 16 with part B. The mismatch between bank account of the assessee and salary credited by the employer needs verification to arrive at correct amount and reason for claiming deduction / exemption under chapter VIA. AO has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ad (in short the CIT (A) ) dated 17.10.2017 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 2. Ground no. 1 relates to confirming disallowance of ₹ 10,30,019 being difference between returned income and as per 26AS and Ground No. 2 relates to confirming addition of ₹ 1,20,061 being difference between Form No. 16 as provided by the employer and as per ITR. 3. Both the grounds of appeal are being considered together as these are related to each other. 4. Succinct facts are that the assessee has filed return of income on 31.07.2014 declaring total income of ₹ 55,33,060. The case was selected under scrutiny through CASS. In response to notice under section 142(1), the assessee filed details a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his employer. It was further claimed that there was dispute between him and his employer; therefore, the employer did not provide Form No. 16 to the assessee. It was further submitted that the reason for deduction of TDS more than 10 time during last two months salary was not provided. Further, the salary credited in his bank account, as shown by the assessee is not tallied, and there is vast difference. The pattern of tax deduction by the employer in the initial months as compared to last two months give rise to possibility that employer would have considered exemption claimed by the assessee while estimation of salary for the purpose of section 192 of the Act and accordingly, estimated lower salary for the purpose of tax deduction under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y be true but how much amount month wise transferred in the bank account of the assessee can be traceable from the payroll maintained by the employer. The employer being the technology firm expected to have electronic payroll since it makes payment of salary to employees electronically. Thus, the employer for some reason decided to keep silence on the month-wise payments to the assessee and furnished such tricky reply in response to notice under section 133(6) of the Act. The Ld.AO without affording opportunity of cross-examination of the employer has ignored the vital facts hence; the addition so made is not sustainable in law and on facts. With regard to disallowance of ₹ 1,20,061, it was contended that difference is due to deductio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... levant material on record. We find that the assessee has not submitted Form No. 16, as according to him, the employer has not provided him due to dispute by which the assessee has resigned from service. However, later on, the assessee has procured Form No. 16, through hose staff of his employer. In meanwhile, the AO obtained Form No. 16 from employer. Thus, there was difference between two Form No.16 submitted before the AO. However, the AO believed the Form No.16 submitted by the employer of the assessee and disbelieved the Form No.16 submitted by the assessee and treated it as false. However, before treating the same the AO should have verified the correct facts from the employer by calling him and producing records. The perusal of letter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of evidence to party, report of enquiry to be shown to the other party and reasoned decisions or speaking orders. We took this guidance for right of hearing, from the ratio as is laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down that rule of fair hearing is necessary before passing any order. We find that it is pre-decision hearing standard of norm of rule of audi alteram partem. We find that in this instant case, the assessee was not given proper hearing. Therefore, we are of the view that the assessee must be given one more opportunity of hearing and to represent his case. Therefore, we restore this appeal to the file of the AO for reconsideration al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
