9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally disclosed at serial number 5 of details of exempt income wherein Rs. 3,291,601/ is stated to be exempt income. The total of the exempt income earned by the assessee is Rs. 4,245,904/ . In view of this is apparent that assessee has disclosed the above amount is exempt income. Therefore, the order passed by the lower authorities are not sustainable in holding that the above sum withdrawn by the assessee from employees Provident fund account after serving for more than five years with his previous employer.it is not denied that if the above conditions are satisfied, the income is exempt u/s 10 (12) of the act. Therefore, no merit in the orders of the lower authorities which were passed without looking into the facts of the case stated in 2 rectification applications filed before the containing all the evidence. In view of this, we direct the learned assessing officer to delete the addition made of withdrawal made by the assessee from his provident fund account which is exempt u/s 10 (12) of the act. Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ereafter Centralised processing Centre [CPC] issued a communication on 3/5/2018 to the assessee that income shown as per form no 26AS has not been included in the computation of the total income in the return of income and therefore there is an adjustment required under section 143 (1) (a) (vi) of the act. It specified that there is a difference in salary income shown as per the return of income of Rs. 8,382,814 whereas as per the form number 26AS such sum is shown to be 95,82,814 and therefore there is a difference of Rs 12 lakhs. Another point was with respect to income from other sources whereas the income as per income tax return was disclosed at Rs. 2,40,896 whereas form number 26AS show that it is Rs. 3,471,746 and therefore there is a difference of Rs. 3,256,850/-. After that assessee also received a communication from centralised processing Centre on 17/12/2018 which is on medication of proposed adjustment under section 143 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Act wherein it was stated that there is inconsistency between the salary income disclosed in the return of income of Rs. 8,382,840/-as per form number 26AS is Rs. 9,582,840 and therefore there is a difference of Rs. 12 lakhs. ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so submitted that even in form number 26 AS also the amount is shown as paid or credited to the assessee, but no tax is deducted at source. This amount is not chargeable to tax as same is exempt under section 10 (12) of the income tax act. Such communication was once again submitted on 25th of March 2021 wherein the copy of the letter submitted on 16/3/2020 was also enclosed. 7. On the above rectification application, The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 17 (1) Mumbai passed order under section 154 of the act on 20/7/2021 rejecting the application holding that contention of the assessee is verified from records and found that, assessee has neither shown the income nor claimed the same as exempt income of Rs. 32,91,601/- in the return of income. The income of Rs. 32,91,601/- is showing in Form 26AS and same is taken by CPC while passing the above said rectification order. There is no mistake which is apparent from record that can be rectified u/s 154 of the I. T. Act, 1961. Accordingly, rectification application filed by assessee is disposed of. 8. Assessee preferred an appeal before the NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) [ld. CIT (A)] on 15/09/2023 dismissing the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 10 (12) of the act and further there is no new claim made by the assessee. Accordingly, it was submitted that the sum of Rs. 3,291,601/- is amount withdrawn by the assessee from his provident fund account after serving with its previous employer for five years and therefore such sum is not chargeable to tax under section 10 (12) of the act. It was stated that all these details are provided before the lower authorities, but they have been ignored. 11. The learned departmental representative imminently supported the order of the lower authority and submitted that the assessee has failed to disclose the above sum as exempt income in the return of income and therefore the lower authorities have held that there is no error in the intimation passed in the section 143 (1) of the act. 12. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the lower authorities. The facts are very simple which shows that the assessee is an employee who has derived income from the salary. Earlier year was also employed with other entity. He found his previous employer from 24 September 2009 to 13 February 2015. Therefore, apparent that service of the assessee is more than fiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
