What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since the AO had revised Form 26AS at the assessee's request, the issue needed to be restored to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO was directed to verify and examine the receipts as per the revised Form 26AS.

The assessee appealed against an addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on Form 26AS. The AO had made an addition of Rs. 45,60,185/- on account of receipts from various parties.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO based on Form 26AS was sustainable when the form was subsequently revised. The need for the AO to re-examine the issue in light of the revised Form 26AS.

Shri Shankarlal Maturam Meena… vs ITO | ITAT Surat 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH,

Before: SHRI C.M.GARG & SHRI O.P.MEENA

आदेश /ORDER

PER C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Valsad (‘CIT(A)’ for short) dated 23.01.2015 for the Assessment Year (A.Y) 2010-11 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act”).

The grounds raised by the Assessee read as follows: “In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have deleted the addition of Rs. 45,60,185/- relying only on report in Form 26 AS and denying the evidences supported by Books of Accounts and

2 ITA No.621/Ahd/2015/SRT (A.Y: 2010-11) Shri Shankarlal Maturam Meena Affidavit of the appellant and hence your appellant prays that the same be deleted.”

We have heard the arguments of both sides and carefully perused the

relevant material placed on the record of the Tribunal. The Assessee’s

Representative (AR) submitted that on request of the assessee the

Assessing Officer (AO) has revised form No. 26AS and in view of the same

no addition on account of impugned amount of Rs. 45,60,185/- pertaining to

the amount received from various parties i.e., from the bank of Rajasthan

Ltd., Jaybharat Textiles and Real Estate Ltd. would be sustainable. The ld.

Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that if Form No.26AS has been

revised by the concerned AO then, department has no objection if the issue

is restored to the file of the AO for a fresh adjudication in the light of revised

Form No.26AS.

On careful consideration of above rival submissions, we are of the

view of that the AO made addition on account of receipt of amount from three

parties and request of the assessee for reconcile and revised amounts

shown in the From No.26AS has been allowed by the AO. Now, in this

situation, verification and examination of the Form No.26AS is required by

the AO thus, this issue is restored to the file of AO for limited purpose i.e.,

verification and examination of receipts shown by the assessee as per

revised form No.26AS. Thus, the issue is restored to the file of AO with a

direction that the AO shall re-adjudicate the issue afresh after allowing due

opportunity to the assessee and without being prejudiced from the earlier

3 ITA No.621/Ahd/2015/SRT (A.Y: 2010-11) Shri Shankarlal Maturam Meena assessment and first appellate order. Accordingly, the sole ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on this day of 18th April, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (ओ पी मीना) (सी एम गग�) (O.P.MEENA) (C.M.GARG) लेखा सद�/Accountant Member �ाियक सद�/Judicial Member सूरत / Surat; िदनांक Dated : 18th April, 2018 EDN आदेश की !ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 2. ��थ� / The Respondent; 3. आयकर आयु#(अपील) / The CIT(A), Valsad ; 4. CCIT, Surat; 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / DR, ITAT, Surat; 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

// True copy // सहायक प)जीकर / Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, सूरत / ITAT, Surat

SHRI SHANKARLAL MATURAM MEENA,VAPI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, VAPI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments