Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: HON’BLE RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI MANISH BORAD
order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) (in short ‘Ld.
CIT]-II, Indore dated 03.06.2019 which is arising out of the order u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961(In short the ‘Act’) dated 22.05.2018 framed by ACIT (CPC), Bangalore.
The Assessee namely Anil Kharia has raised following grounds of appeal in ITANo.123 /Ind/2017:
1. That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Learned CIT (Appeal) (I), Indore has erred in not allowing credit of claimed TDS of Rs. 2,52,431/- on bank interest which was already offered during declaration in IDS 2016 but credit of TDS amount was not allowed. Hence claimed in regular return, however credit of TDS was also disallowed after ignoring to the explanation regarding relevant assessee not claimed in their individual return. 2.That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the learned CITCA) has erred in not allowing credit of TDS in name of relatives whose investment and income was disclosed by appellant in own name in IDS 2016 after ignoring to the explanation, as no benefit was claimed in their respective return of income of such TDS. 3.Your appellant reserves its right to add to amend to alter or to modify any of above grounds and to pursue any other or further grounds as may be required.
The Assessee namely Tripti Kharia has raised following grounds of appeal in ITANo. 124/Ind/2017:
Anil & Tripti Kharia & 124/Ind/2020
That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the Learned CIT (Appeal) (I), Indore has erred in not allowing credit of claimed TDS of Rs. 1,79,702/- on bank interest which was already offered during declaration in IDS 2016 but credit of TDS amount was not allowed. Hence claimed in regular return, however credit of TDS was also disallowed after ignoring to the explanation regarding relevant assessee not claimed in their individual return. 3.That on the facts & in the circumstances of the case the learned CITCA) has erred in not allowing credit of TDS in name of relatives whose investment and income was disclosed by appellant in own name in IDS 2016 after ignoring to the explanation, as no benefit was claimed in their respective return of income of such TDS. 4.Your appellant reserves its right to add to amend to alter or to modify any of above grounds and to pursue any other or further grounds as may be required.
As the issues raised in these appeals are common and relate to same group of assessees, at the request of all the parties these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order for sake of convenience and brevity.
As the facts of both the appeals are same and so is the issue raised before us will adjudicate the common issue raised in the instant two appeals on the basis of facts in the case of Anil Kharia in ITANo.123/Ind/2020 and our decision in this appeal shall be apply mutatis mutandis on the appeal of the assessee namely Tripti Kharia in ITANo.124/Ind/2020.
Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are 3
Anil & Tripti Kharia & 124/Ind/2020 that the assessee is an individual. There were some unaccounted investments in fixed deposit held with bank in the name of self and children namely Satyanshu Kharia. A Scheme was declared by the Central Government in the name of Income Declaration Scheme 2016( in short ‘IDS 2016’). Assessee opted to apply under this scheme notified by the Central Government effective from 01.06.2016. Form No.1 filed on 30th September 2016 u/s 183 of the Act declaring an amount of Rs.76,89,304/- . Thereafter assessee filed the return for A.Y. 2017-18 declaring income of Rs.55,00,270/- which also included the interest income on investment declared under IDS 2016. Total TDS claimed was Rs.4,22,140/-, but in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 13.06.2018 credit for TDS of only Rs.1,29,132/- was given.
Assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) claiming that the TDS of Rs.2,52,431/- which was deducted on the interest accrued/paid on the investments declared under IDS 2016 has not been given to the assessee, as it was not appearing in Form 26AS available on the portal of Income Tax Department. It was also contended that since the 4
Anil & Tripti Kharia & 124/Ind/2020 investments were unaccounted, PAN No. was not given to bank authorities due to which tax was deducted at higher rate and the amount of tax deducted could not appear in No.26AS statement on the portal of Income Tax Department. This request of the assessee was not accepted by Ld. CIT(A).
Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that sum of Rs.76,89,304/- was declared under IDS 2016 which included the income disclosed in self-name at Rs. 48,06,488/- and the income disclosed in the name of son Satyanshu Kharia at Rs.28,82,816/-. TDS credit for the tax deduction on the investments declared under IDS 2016 was not allowed. Assessee referred to the paper book dated 18.06.2012 and 4.08.2021 and also took us through the affidavit filed on page no.1 to 4, copy of the circular No. 25 & 27 dated 20th June 2016 and 14th July, 2016 placed at pages 5 to 13 of the paper book and other relevant details. Prayer was made for giving direction to allow the credit of TDS of Rs.2,52,431/-.
Per contra ld. Departmental Representative (DR) 5
Anil & Tripti Kharia & 124/Ind/2020 vehemently argued supporting the order of ld. CIT(A).
We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. Sole grievance of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not allowing credit of TDS claimed at Rs.2,52,431/- deducted on the interest income which accrued the investments offered to tax under the ‘Income Declaration Scheme 2016’.
We observe that in pursuance to the Income Declaration Scheme 2016 notified by the Central Government w.e.f.
01.06.2016 assessee filed declaration in form No.1 dated 30.09.2016 and offered income of Rs.62,41,474/- and Rs.14,47,830/- for A.Y. 2016-17 & 2017-18. Total income was declared at Rs.76,89,304/- and tax and penalty of Rs. 28,82,816/- was payable. Assessee claimed TDS of Rs.2,93,008/- deducted on such unaccounted investments. The assessee was not allowed the claim of Rs. 2,52,431/- for A.Y. 2017-18.
We further observe that as per circular no.25 of 2016 dated 30th June 2016 certain clarification was given regarding the Income Declaration Scheme 2016. In this circular question no.4
Anil & Tripti Kharia & 124/Ind/2020 reads that whether credit for tax deducted, if any, in respect of income declared shall be allowed? To this question the answer given in this circular reads that “Yes, credit for tax deducted shall be allowed only in those cases where the related income is declared under the Scheme and the credit for the tax has not already been claimed in the return of income filed for any assessment year.”
We further observe that the assesse has stated in the affidavit that the alleged sum of TDS of Rs. 2,52,431/- has not been claimed in any of the return. The amount declared under IDS 2016 by the assessee is Rs.76,89,304/- which comprises of two parts, sum of Rs.48,06,488/- pertaining to assessee and the remaining amount of Rs.28,82,816/- relates to assessee’s son Satyanshu Kharia. The amount being declared under IDS is not in dispute. Credit for TDS has not been allowed only for the reason that PAN No. of the payee is not mentioned in the certificate due to which tax credit is not appearing in the income tax portal. It is an evident fact that since the investments was unaccounted, assessee had not given the PAN to the Bank where such investments were made. However, since the assessee has Anil & Tripti Kharia & 124/Ind/2020 declared the income under IDS 2016, now the assessee is eligible to get credit for TDS of Rs.2,52,431/- as provided in the clarification on the IDS 2016 vide circular no.25/2016 dated 30th June 2016.
12. We, therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case are of the considered view that necessary verification should be made at the level of the Ld. AO, before whom assessee shall provide all the details of IDS 2016, certificate of tax deducted in the name of self and children and also provide complete details of TDS Rs.2,52,431/-. If after the necessary verification it is proved that the alleged IDS of Rs.2,52,431/- was deducted on the income/investment declared under IDS 2016 comprising of the principle amount of the investments and interest earned thereon, then the assessee should be allowed the benefit of tax deducted at source of Rs.2,52,431/-. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of being heard to be provided to the assessee.
Accordingly, ground No.1 & 2 raised by the assessee in ITANo.123/Ind/2020 are allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No.3 is general in nature which needs no adjudication.
Anil & Tripti Kharia & 124/Ind/2020
Now we take up the appeal in the case of Tripti Kharia, ITANo.124/Ind/2020. We find that the facts in this case and the issues raised are identical to the case of Anil Kharia in ITANo.123/Ind/2020 which we have adjudicated in the preceding paras. We, therefore, apply our finding in the case of Anil Kharia mutatis mutandis on the issue raised in the case of Tripti Kharia.
We, therefore, under the given facts and circumstances of the case are of the considered view that necessary verification should be made at the level of the Ld. AO, before whom assessee shall provide all the details of IDS 2016, certificate of tax deducted in the name of self and children and also provide complete details of TDS Rs.1,79,702/-. If after the necessary verification it is proved that the alleged TDS of Rs.1,79,702/- was deducted on the income/investment declared under “IDS 2016” comprising of the principle amount of the investments and interest earned thereon, then the assessee should be allowed the benefit of tax deducted at source of Rs.1,79,702/-. Needless to mention that proper opportunity of being heard to be provided to the assessee.
Accordingly, ground No.1 & 2 raised by the assessee in Anil & Tripti Kharia & 124/Ind/2020 ITANo.124/Ind/2020 are allowed for statistical purposes. Ground No.3 is general in nature which needs no adjudication.
In the result, Assessee’s appeals in ITANo.123 & 124/Ind/2020 are allowed for statistical purposes.
The order pronounced as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 13.09.2021.