9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (8) TMI 1488X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ployer over and above 1 lakh is subject to tax in the hands of the assessee. On perusal of the form 16 issued by the employer, we note that the amount of 4,32,094.00 has already been shown as income therein which has suffered the tax liability. Assessee in the revised return of income claimed the relief under section 89 of the Act on account of the contribution made by the employer towards the superannuation fund as it was representing the arrears for the financial years beginning from 2009-10 to 2012-13. But the revised return was not processed as the original return was belatedly filed which cannot be revised. Thus it is clear that the assessee was not given the benefit of the provisions of section 89 of the Act. Accordingly, the apprehen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rounds of appeal at the time of hearing. The interconnected issue raised by the assessee is that the learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition made by the AO for ₹4,32,096 (426247+ 5,849) on account of the contribution made by the employer towards the superannuation fund. 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee in the present case is an individual and drawing his salary from ONGC. The assessee filed his Original return of income for the year under consideration dated 1st October 2014 declaring total income at ₹13,75,890 which was subsequently revised dated 30th December 2014 declaring total income at ₹11,64,330.00 only. However, the revised return was not accepted by the Revenue for the reason that there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aimed the amount received from the employer under PRBS under Chapter-VIA of the Act of ₹ 4,26,247/-. In original return of income the assessee has chimed deduction u/s.10 Employer Superannuation Fund directly from gross salary u/s.!7(2)(vii) to the tune of ₹ 1,00,000/- and also claimed deduction under Chapter VIA of ₹ 79,871/- and thereby claimed refund of ₹ 63,014/-. But this issue arises from the revised return of income filed by the assessee and claimed deduction u/s. 10 Employer Superannuation fund directly from Gross Salary u/s. 17(2)(vii) of ₹ 3,11,560/- for the period from A.Y.2010-11 to 2013-14 and also claimed deduction under Chapter VIA of ₹ 79,871/- and thereby claimed refund of ₹ 1,28,39 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, it is seen that the assessee has deliberately attempt to take undue advantage by wrong claim which the A.O. has clearly mentioned in the assessment order. Thus, the action of the A.O is upheld and no further inference / is drawn. Thus, the addition of ₹ 4,26,247/- is confirmed as excess claim u/s.10 of the I.T. Act. 3.4 Regarding second issue that there was excess amount of PRBS claimed of ₹ 5849/-. The A.O. observed from evidence i.e. pay slip and reply from the employer mentioned amount of PRBS at ₹ 4,32,094/-. But from the Certificate issued by ONGC the PRBS amount mentioned at ₹ 4,26,245/-. Thus, there was difference amount of ₹ 5849/- and the same was added to the total income. The action of the A.O, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the employer over and above ₹1 lakh is subject to tax in the hands of the assessee. 6.1 On perusal of the form 16 issued by the employer, we note that the amount of ₹ 4,32,094.00 has already been shown as income therein which has suffered the tax liability. 6.2 We further note that the assessee in the revised return of income claimed the relief under section 89 of the Act on account of the contribution made by the employer towards the superannuation fund as it was representing the arrears for the financial years beginning from 2009-10 to 2012-13. But the revised return was not processed as the original return was belatedly filed which cannot be revised. Thus it is clear that the assessee was not given the benefit of the pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
