Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's return was treated as invalid. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed discrepancies in salary and professional receipts from the Individual Transaction Statement (ITS) and made additions. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal ex-parte.
Held
The Tribunal held that there were duplicate entries in the ITS statement leading to discrepancies in salary and professional receipts. The matter was restored to the AO for recomputation after verifying and excluding the duplicate entries.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made on account of alleged excess salary and professional fees were based on correct ITS data, or if they were due to duplicate entries requiring re-verification by the AO.
Sections Cited
148, 142(1), 144, 147, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Before: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date of Hearing 13.03.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date of Pronouncement 27.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 11.11.2024 passed u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2012-13.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
A.Y. 2012-13 Madhusudan Mukund Kalyankar “1. The Hon. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte, for alleged non- compliance to appeal hearing notices, when the appellant was not aware of such notices issued, as all such notices as well as electronic messages were to the registered email id/ cell no. of the chartered accountant of the appellant, who did not respond to the hearing notices and the appellant was not aware of such non-compliance and hence the order dismissing the appeal was not justified and may kindly be over turned and set aside.
2. The Hon. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte, for alleged non- compliance to hearing notices, without deciding the appeal on the merits and for this reason also the order of the Hon. CIT(A) is bad-in-law and required to be set aside.
3. The Hon CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.35,46,259/- made by the id AO, being excess salary from Saraswati Ago Chemical (1) Pvt Ltd allegedly reported in the Individual Transaction Statement (ITS) data, not appreciating that the actual salary received by the appellant for the year under appeal was Rs. 16,48,419/- only on which TDS of Rs.2,63,662/- was deducted and therefore the addition of Rs.35,46,259/- is factually incorrect, bad in law and required to be deleted.
The Hon CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.10,09,211/- made by the Id AO, being professional/technical fees received from Bayer Cropscience Ltd on the basis of Individual Transaction Statement (ITS) data, not appreciating the fact that the addition was made on the basis of incorrect facts, when the actual professional receipts for the year under appeal were Rs.5,60,500/- only on which TDS of Rs.55,440/- was deducted and expenses incurred for earning such income was required to be considered and therefore the addition is factually incorrect, bad in law and required to be deleted.”
Although the assessee has raised four grounds of appeal
, he is essentially agitating the addition made to salary income as well as to the professional/technical fees received, by the Ld. AO on account of duplicate entries in the Individual Transaction Statement (ITS) data without appreciating the submissions of the assessee in this regard.
4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring nil income on 26.05.2012. The return was treated as invalid as ITR 5 was submitted after the due date. It was noticed by the Ld. AO from the ITS data that the assessee earned salary income (Rs. 5,94,618/-), fee of professional or technical services (Rs. 1,10,88,000/-) and interest income (Rs. 4,33,881/-) which had not A.Y. 2012-13 Madhusudan Mukund Kalyankar been offered to tax. Accordingly, a notice u/s 148 was issued. However, no return was filed by the assessee in response to this notice. Subsequently, as no compliance was made to the notices issued u/s 142(1) and the show cause notice, Ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment exparte u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act vide order dated 10.12.2019 at a total income of Rs. 65,55,371/- after making aforesaid additions.
5. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Since no compliance was made to the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), except for one request seeking adjournment, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 11.11.2024. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Tribunal.
6. Grounds No. 1 & 2 relate to the exparte decision of the Ld. CIT(A) without affording appropriate opportunity to the assessee and without going into the merits of the appeal. Ground No. 3 relates to the addition of Rs. 35,46,259/- on account of excess salary and Ground No. 4 pertains to the addition of Rs. 10,09,211/- on account of professional/technical fees.
7. With regard to excess addition on account of salary as well as professional/technical fees, Ld. AR explained that the discrepancy is on account of duplicate entries in the ITS statement with respect to salary and professional receipts. He has furnished a detailed statement pointing out specific entries Salary from M/s Original Entries Corresponding entries Saraswati Agro Pvt. Ltd. (Highlighted in green in (Highlighted in orange in the attached ITS) the attached ITS) Total entries in ITS:12 Sr.no. Amount (Rs.) Sr.no. Amount (Rs.) Duplicate entries: 5 3 186500/- 26 1,86,500/- 4 186500/- 27 1,86,500/- 5 186500/- 28 186,500/- 10 1508419/- 21 15,08,419/- 20 5,29,419/- 23 5,29,419/- 25,97,338/- 25,97,338/- Professional from M/s Original Entries Corresponding duplicate receipts Bayer entries Cropscience Ltd. Sr.no Amount (Rs.) Sr.no Amount (Rs.) Total entries in ITS: 6 13 1,84,800/- 33 1,84,800/- 14 1,84,800/- 34 1,84,800/- Duplicate entries:3 15 1,84,800/- 35 1,84,800/- 5,54,400/- 5,54,400/- 8. It has accordingly been submitted by the Ld. AR that the matter may be restored to Ld. AO for recomputing the salary income as well as professional receipts after excluding duplicate entries as pointed out in the chart. Ld. DR has also not objected to the proposition as there appears to be some error in ITS statements in view of the submissions of the Ld. AR.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed before us. Apparently, some of the receipts have been taxed twice in the hands of the assessee for which reconciliation has been attempted by way of the above chart. We, therefore, deem it appropriate to restore the issue to Ld. AO for the limited purpose of verification of duplicate entries. Ld. AO is directed to give A.Y. 2012-13 Madhusudan Mukund Kalyankar due opportunity to the assessee to demonstrate the existence of duplicate entries in the ITS and recompute the correct income accordingly.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.032025.