DR. SWATI MAHESH VINCHURKAR,SURAT vs. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC, BENGALURU

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is resident of Surat City, State of Gujarat. The assessee is Doctor by profession. The assessee filed her return of income for assessment year (AY) 2017-18 on 14th October 2017 declaring taxable income of Rs. 5,23,413/-. In the computation of total income by showing income from “profession” and “other source”. The assessee claimed refund of Rs. 450/-, while filing return of income. The CPC, Bangalore while processing the return of income made addition of Rs.5,63,952/-. Though, in response to the notice under section 143(2) the assessee denied of having earned any kind of such income. The CPC made these additions on the basis of statement of TDS in Form-26AS, being tax deducted at source (TDS) of Rs. 10,000/- by Electricity Distribution Division Gajraula-UP (TAN- LKNE05103A) and other entry of Rs.98,252/- by way of salary income and TDS of Rs. 5000/- deducted (shown) by Electricity test division Amroha-UP (TAN-LKNE05166A). Aggrieved by the additions on the basis of statement of TDS in Form-26AS, the assessee filed appeal before learned CIT(A). Before learned CIT(A) the assessee filed detailed written submissions and have categorically stated vide 2 2017-18) Dr Swati Mahesh Vinchurkar submissions dated 29.01.2021, that the assessee has not earned any such income as reflected in Form-26 AS. The assessee has not included such income in her total income and that before the CPC the assessee made her submissions but the same was ignored and made addition under the head ‘income from salary’. The assessee also relied on certain 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.

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 Surat. The assessee has not rendered any professional or other services either to Electricity Distribution Division Gajraula-UP or to Electricity test division Amroha-UP. The Electricity Distribution Division Gajraula-UP or to Electricity test division Amroha-UP is more than 1000 Kilometers away from Surat City. The assessee has no concern or casual connection or any kind 3 2017-18) Dr Swati Mahesh Vinchurkar of relation with the alleged deductor, the entry of TDS in the Form- 26AS issued to the assessee are wrong. The assessee submitted her response to CPC Bangalore as well as before ld. CIT(A) the assessee specifically denied of having earned such income. The Ld AR for the assessee submits that it is far from imagination that the assessee served such organization which are based 1000 KM away from the residence of the assessee. The ld. AR for the assessee furnished the details of consultation charges rendered by the assessee to various Hospitals and organization in Surat City and interest earned on fixed deposits. The ld AR for the assessee submits that the assessee has not rendered any other professional services, the assessee specifically denied such services or transaction. Once the assessee denied such transaction the onus was on the revenue to establish that the assessee had entered into any such transactions. The ld. CIT(A) has not made any verification or effort to verify such transactions. There is possibility of entering the wrong PAN, which belongs to the assessee and the assessee has been unnecessary put to 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, 4 2017-18) Dr Swati Mahesh Vinchurkar  Seal For Life India (P)Ltd Vs DCIT ( 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.

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 additions were made in the hand of assessee on the basis of TDS shown in Form-26AS. We find that in response to the notice of CPC, the assessee denied of having such income and that her response was ignored. Before ld CIT(A) the assessee again specifically contended that she has not earned such income nor any work was performed by her. We find that despite specific contention of the assessee, the ld CIT(A) instead of verifying the facts confirmed the additions by taking view that it seems that CPC had considered the appellant explanation before making disallowance and that there is prima facie evidence. We find 5