9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 1123X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act') dated 28.02.2021 for assessment year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal; (1) The ld CIT(A)NFAC, Delhi erred in law and facts in confirming an additions made by DCIT, CPC of Rs. 563,592/- under the head salary under section 143(1) of the Income tax Act 1961, based on entry in Form-26AS. (2) The ld CIT(A)NFAC, Delhi erred in law and facts in ignoring the assessee's response against the adjustment proposed in processing of ITR by DCIT, CPC as per First Proviso to section 143(1) (a)(vi). Hence, additions of Rs. 5,63,952/- on the basis of entries in Form-26AS is unfair unjust and against the principles of natural justice hence the same shold be deleted. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tain case laws. The ld. CIT(A) despite recording the submissions of the assessee confirmed the addition made by AO/ CPC Bangalore by taking view that "it seems that CPC had considered the appellant explanation before making disallowance". It was also held that there is prima facie evidence that the assessee has earned such income and dismissed the appeal of assessee. Further aggrieved, the assessee has filed present appeal before this Tribunal. 3. We have heard the submissions of the learned authorised representative (AR) for the assessee and the learned departmental representative (DR) for the revenue and have gone through the order of the lower authorities. The ld. AR for the assessee submits that the assessee is Doctor and living in Sur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o mental pressure by making such additions despite denying such income. To support his contention the learned AR for the assessee relied on the following decisions; ACIT Vs Zee Media Corporation Ltd (ITA No. 2166 & 2695 /Mum/2016) dated 16.4.2018, Seal For Life India (P)Ltd Vs DCIT ( ITA No. 1236/Ahd/2017 dated 02.08.2018) Ravindra Pratap Thareja Vs ITO [2015] 60 taxmann.com 304 (Jabalpur-Trib), 4. On the other hand the ld. Sr DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. The ld. Sr DR for the revenue in alternative submissions further submits that the matter may be restore to the assessing officer for verification of facts. 5. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... if more than 1000 KM away from the place of practice of assessee. Considering the peculiar facts of the present case, we find merit in the submissions of the ld AR for the assessee that the assessee had entered into any such transactions and the lower authorities have not made any verification or effort to verify such transactions and there is certain mistake of entering the wrong PAN, which belongs to the assessee and the addition made in the income is uncalled for. 6. We further find that the coordinate bench of Tribunal in Ravindra Pratap Thareja Vs ITO (supra) held that merely because a payment was reflected in Form-26AS and was shown to have been made to the assessee, it could not be brought to tax as it could not be established that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
