JAJODIA FINANCE LTD.,KOLKATA vs. LD. ITO,WARD-9(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 621/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 September 2023AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the TDS mismatch was due to the payer not depositing the deducted TDS by the return filing date. The assessee later offered this amount to tax in the subsequent financial year, thus it was not a case of unaccounted income.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared NIL income for AY 2015-16 but claimed a refund. The AO noted a mismatch between TDS claimed in the return and TDS in Form 26AS, leading to an addition of Rs. 16,37,260/- on account of unaccounted income.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of unaccounted income based on TDS mismatch is justified when the TDS was later offered to tax in a subsequent year.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SRI SANJAY GARG & DR. MANISH BORAD

order

: September 8th, 2023 ORDER

Per Manish Borad, Accountant Member:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2015-16 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-3, Lucknow [in I.T.A. No.: 621/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Jajodia Finance Limited. short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 01.05.2023 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 29.12.2017.

2.

The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds: “

1. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate order passed was without jurisdiction and also in violation of principals of natural justice hence is bad in law and be quashed.

2. For that in the facts and circumstances of the case the Appellate order passed was without providing proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The appellate order should be set aside as the same is bad in law.

3. For that in the facts and circumstance of the case Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals erred in upholding and confirming the addition of Rs. 16,37,260 on account of unaccounted income due to mismatch in TDS as claimed in return of Income and TDS as per Form No.26AS. The addition is not called for hence the same be deleted.

4. The appellant craves leave to produce additional evidences in terms of Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963.

5. For that the facts and circumstances of the case the interest computed u/s 234 A/B/C/D of the IT Act 1961 is over charged and wrongly calculated and or is not applicable to the assessee case hence the interest be deleted and or correctly computed.

6. The appellant craves leave to press new, additional grounds of appeal or modify, withdraw any of the above grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

3. The effective issue raised in the instant appeal by the assessee is that ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding and confirming the addition of Rs. 16,37,260/- on account of unaccounted income due to mismatch in TDS as claimed in return of income and TDS as per Form 26AS.

4. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a limited company. Income of Rs. ‘NIL’ declared in the e-return for AY 2015-16 filed on Page 2 of 5 I.T.A. No.: 621/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Jajodia Finance Limited. 30.10.2015 claiming refund of Rs. 16,96,600/-. Subsequent to the case, being selected for scrutiny through CASS and followed by serving of valid notices, ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that tax credit claimed in income tax return is less than the tax credit available in Form 26AS. Ld. AO observed that TDS disclosed in ITR is Rs. 17,20,839/- but as per Form 26AS TDS is Rs. 18,84,565/- and there is difference of TDS of Rs. 1,63,726/- and since TDS is deducted @ 10% ld. AO came to a conclusion that the assessee has not disclosed income of Rs. 16,37,260/- in the income tax return and made the addition thereof.

5. The assessee challenged the said addition before ld. CIT(A) but failed to succeed.

6.

Aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is an interest income received from M/s. Pooja Construction but before the date of filing the return on 30.10.2015, the TDS deducted by M/s. Pooja Construction was not deposited and thus, not appearing in Form 26AS. It was subsequently deposited on 25.11.2015. The said TDS which was deposited by M/s. Pooja Construction has been included by the assessee in the interest income in subsequent financial year and therefore, it is not a case of unaccounted interest income.

7.

On the other hand, ld. D/R vehemently argued supporting the orders of both the lower authorities.

More judgments on Section 234A

All 5,126 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →