9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s no fault of the assessee when some other party had wrongly deducted tax at source on any transaction by quoting the PAN of the assessee by mistake. The assessee had already informed to the customers that the proprietary business in the name of M/s Yogi Transport was closed and a new partnership was formed from assessment year (A.Y.) 2014-15 onwards. The assessee had also informed the PAN of the partnership firm of M/s Yogi Transport but customers wrongly deducted TDS by quoting assessee s PAN. Even after this fact was pointed out to these companies personally by the assessee, the said parties did not care to revise their TDS returns. Thus, there was no fault on the part of the assessee, as the assessee has also subsequently filed revised return of income on 28.09.2018, wherein the assessee did not claim the said TDS and the assessee paid the additional tax by way of self-assessment tax. Therefore, we note that in these circumstances, the assessee should not be penalized. We note that action of assessing officer, in making prima facie adjustment by adding the turnover in the hands of the assessee, is quite illogical and unjustifiable in as much as it has resulted into double taxat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt. The assessee had filed his return for A.Y. 2017-18 on 29.03.2018 declaring total income to the tune of Rs. 12,25,050/- wherein he had shown business income and income from other sources. During the year under consideration, the partnership firm viz: Yogi Transport had carried out transportation work of the under mentioned parties and had shown all the income earned from such transportation contract in its return filed for assessment year (A.Y.) 2017-18. The said parties had also deducted tax as under. Name Amount of Contract TDS Deducted ParshottamdasThobhanbhai Patel 51,864 519 Lupin Ltd 3,52,452 7,050 Bhageria Industries Ltd. 84,80,676 84,809 HDFC Bank Ltd. 11,434 1,143 Medidian Bond Pvt. Ltd. 1,05,14,379 47,344 Maher Cargo Carriers Pvt. Ltd. 7,65,474 0 Atul Ltd. 14,08,020 17,754 Sarna Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. 2,66,524 2665 Suvidha Industries 16,390 164 Sigma Elements Pvt. Ltd. 1,02,578 0 Total 2,19,67,791 1,61,448 4. However, the above said parties, mentioned in above chart, had deducted tax at source and deposited to the Government under the PAN of the assessee, who is a partner of the firm instead of depositing the same under the PAN of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the subject, the learned AO has erred in making prima facie adjustment and making addition of Rs. 2,13,98,205/- to the total income of the assessee by correlating the transportation income to TDS of Rs. 1,60,302/- reflected in Form 26AS of the assessee and treating the same as income from other sources. The CIT(A) has allowed the appeal of the assessee based on the following findings: 1. The assessee is a partner in M/s Yogi Transport, a partnership firm, engaged in the business of logistics. Till financial year 2013-14, the assessee was carrying on transportation business as a proprietor in the name and style of M/s Yogi Transport. Thereafter, in F.Y.2014-15, there was a change in constitution and the proprietary concern of the assessee viz. Yogi Transport was converted in to a partnership firm. 2. The assessee had filed his return for A.Y. 2017-18 on 29.03.2018 declaring income to the tune of Rs. 12,25,050/- wherein he had shown business income and income from other sources. 3. During the year under consideration, the partnership firm viz. Yogi Transport had carried out transportation work and had shown all the income earned from Such transportation contract in its retu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rtnership firm. However, upon realizing the fact that the corresponding income of TDS was accounted for in the partnership firm and therefore, he filed a revised return of income on 28.09.2018, wherein he did not claim the said TDS and paid the additional tax by way of self-assessment tax. Thus, the assessee had not claimed total TDS of Rs. 1,60,305/- in his revised return of income, therefore ld CIT(A) deleted the addition. Therefore, ld Counsel contended that order passed by ld CIT(A) may be upheld. 9. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other material brought on record. We note that assessee has submitted before us the following documents and evidences, viz: (i) Relevant Extracted of Return of Income for AY 2014-15 (vide Pb. 1 to 10), (ii) Letter filed before Assessing Officer (vide Pb. 11 to 14), (iii) Relevant Extract of Return of Income for AY 2014-15 (vide Pb. 15), (iv) Acknowledgement of Original Return of income along with Computation of Total Income for AY ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... after this fact was pointed out to these companies personally by the assessee, the said parties did not care to revise their TDS returns. Thus, there was no fault on the part of the assessee, as the assessee has also subsequently filed revised return of income on 28.09.2018, wherein the assessee did not claim the said TDS of Rs. 1,60,305/- and the assessee paid the additional tax by way of self-assessment tax. Therefore, we note that in these circumstances, the assessee should not be penalized. We note that Coordinate Bench of ITAT Surat in the case of Dr. Swati Mahesh Vinchurkar Vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore [ITA No 43/SRT/2021] wherein the Bench has, after considering the decision of Honourable Jabalpur Bench in the case of Ravindra PratapThareja V/s. ITO [(2015) 60 taxmann.com 304] held as under. "5. We have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the orders of the lower authorities carefully. There is no dispute that the assessee is resident of Surat. The assessee is qualified Doctor being Pediatric (Child Specialist). While filing her return of income the assessee has shown income from profession and other sources. During the process by CPC, the add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we note that action of assessing officer, in making prima facie adjustment by adding the turnover to the tune of Rs. 2,13,98,205/-, in the hands of the assessee, is quite illogical and unjustifiable in as much as it has resulted into double taxation. The partnership firm, M/s Yogi Transport had already accounted for this turnover in its books of accounts and shown profit thereon and also paid due tax thereon and now, the said entire turnover was again added to the income of the assessee and hence, it is a clear case of double taxation. Moreover, the assessee has not claimed TDS of Rs. 1,60,305/-, in the revised return of income filed by him, and partnership firm of assessee has shown turnover of Rs. 2,13,98,205/-, which belongs to TDS of Rs. 1,60,305/-, hence there is no loss to the revenue. Although, the order of ld CIT(A) is in brief, however, on a careful reading of the Ld.CIT(A) order and the findings thereon, we do not find any valid reason to interfere with the decision and findings of the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, we dismiss the appeal of Revenue.
14. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Order is pronounced on 28/08/2023 in the open court. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
