9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 1231X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DR ORDER PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred as ld. CIT(A) Valsad dated 02.07.2018 for the assessment year 2013-14, which in terms arises from order passed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 28.03.2016. The Revenue raised following grounds of appeal:- i) Whether on the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. (A) erred in allowing the ground of appeal of the assessee on account of difference in payment received as per 26AS and as per books without considering the fact that the assessee failed to discharge the onus cast upon him to submit necessary confirmation of third parties related to TDS deduction. ii) It is therefore, prayed that the order of the CIT(A), be set-aside and that the order of the Assessing Officer be restored. iii) The appellant craves to add, modify or alter any grounds during the course of appeal proceedings 2. Brief facts of the case as extracted from the lower authorities are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company, engaged in the business of civil construction of factory building, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ade India Ltd. The AO recorded that M/s Met Trade India Ltd. has failed to produce confirmation. Thus on the basis of difference reflected in Form 26AS and receipt shown in the books of accounts the Assessing Officer made addition of ₹ 3.74 Crore. 5. Aggrieved by the addition, the assessee filed before ld. CIT(A). Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee filed its details of written submissions. The submissions of the assessee is recorded in para 3.2 of the order of ld. CIT(A). The assessee in its submission stated that the assessee-company had a contract with Metenere Ltd. (formerly known as Met Trade India Ltd) for supply and commissioning of lead, aluminium foil and aluminium extrusion plants at Kutch and Damtal in Himachal Pradesh for a total value of ₹ 10.20 Crores. In A.Y. 2013-14, the assessee-company raised running bills of ₹ 8.32 Crores and further paid to various parties of ₹ 20 lacs on behalf of contractee parties and as per their request and balance of ₹ 2.36 Crores for A.Y. 2014-15. The assessee furnished the extract of ledger accounts of M/s Met Trade India Ltd. as appearing in their books of account of assessee for A.Ys. 2013-14 2014- 15. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xpected to be taxed after completion of assessment. In order to ensure the recovery of tax, income tax act provides the payment of tax and advances, to be treated as payment of tax. The payer deducted the tax as per scheme of the Income Tax Act in respect of payment made by them, amount deducted by the payer towards TDS has to be treated as payment of tax. The assessee claims that there was wrong entry and wrong credit, the assessing Officer has to examine the same with open mind and find out, if there was a genuine credit and found in Form 26AS. The payer is also tax payer in the country. The Revenue cannot seek the burden to the assessee on the ground that the payer could not be contacted, the prayer is a Company registered under the Companies Act. The assessee requested the prayer company s Director can be very well be contacted by the Assessing Officer and to ascertain error in TDS return. The assessee also explained that initially burden to prove is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of credit shown in 26AS and accordingly the assessee provided all documentary evidence like bank statement, company of contracts, reconciliation of 26AS at the time of assessment, the Assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... through process server of the department. We find that the assessee has been served on more than two occasions. The assessee neither sent any written submission nor did anybody attend on behalf of the assessee. In these circumstances we left no option, except to her the submission of ld. Commissioner of income tax-Departmental Representative (CIT-DR) for the revenue and the material available on record. The ld. CIT-DR for the Revenue submits that during the assessment, the Assessing officer found discrepancy qua the income offered and the total receipt shown in the statement in Form 26AS. As per Form 26AS the assessee received ₹ 12.07 Crore, however the assessee has shown in its books only ₹ 8.32 Crore. The AO, in order to verify the same issued notice to the payer. No reply was received from the payer. The assessee could not reconcile the difference in the statement on Form-26AS and the income shown in hits return of income, accordingly the Assessing Officer made an addition of ₹ 3.74 Crore. The ld.CIT(A) accepted the explanation furnished by the assessee, despite the fact that during the remand proceedings, the assessee gain failed to reconcile of the statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
