Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: HON’BLE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI
ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; The present appeal of the assessee for the assessment year [for short “AY”] 2017-18 is assailed against the first appellate order i.e. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short “CIT(A) /NFAC”] dt. 13/10/2021 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act,1961 [for short “the Act”] which emanated out of assessment order dt.15/12/2019 passed u/s 143(1) of the Act by CPC, Bengaluru [for short “AO”] vide DIN CPC/1718/V2/1903605865. ITAT-Pune Page 1 of 4
Ajit Vasant Deshpande
The grounds of appeal
raised for adjudication are; “1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of Ld.AO (CPC) of adding Rs. 10,24,962/- under income from other sources.
2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not giving the sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant.”
3. Facts of the case borne out of the records are; 3.1 The assessee is a resident individual for the year under consideration filed his return of income [for short “ITR”] on 01/07/2017 and revised on 30/03/2019 declaring total income of ₹5,71,150/- which was summarily processed determining total income at ₹15,96,110/- on account of inconsistency between income reported by the assessee and income reflected in Form No 26AS.
3.2 The impugned addition of ₹10,24,962/- was challenged before the Ld. FAA with the contention that, all the income reflected in Form No 26AS has been considered while computing the income and declared while filing ITR, however finding no force in the submission, the addition was confirmed for the reasons that, the assessee failed to incorporate the ITAT-Pune Page 2 of 4
Ajit Vasant Deshpande ICICI Prudential Life whereupon a TDS u/s 194DA was apparently deducted and reflected in Form No 26AS.
3.3 Aggrieved by the action of both the tax authorities below [for short “TAB”], the assessee brought up the matter before the Tribunal with the grounds of appeal laid hereinbefore at para 2, alleging insufficient opportunity accorded to prove his case.
During the course of physical hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee [for short “AR”] adverting to insufficiency of opportunity during the proceedings, has requested that, in the interest of justice, the case may be remanded back to the file of jurisdictional assessing officer to verify the claim of the assessee that, all the transactions reflected in Form No 26AS indeed taken into consideration while computing the total income for the purpose of ITR. The learned departmental representative without controverting the facts of the case, favoured the request of the Ld. AR in remanding the file back for verification. ITAT-Pune Page 3 of 4
Ajit Vasant Deshpande
After hearing to rival contentions of both the parties; and subject to the provisions of rule 18 ITAT, Rules,1963 perused case records, and in all its fairness, without commenting on the merits of the case, we deem fit to remand the file back to the jurisdictional AO for a limited purpose to determine total income after considering the reconciliation of income reported with that of Form No 26AS and after according reasonable opportunity to the assessee.
Resultantly, the appeal of the appellant assessee is ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE in aforestated terms. In terms of rule 34 of ITAT Rules, the order pronounced in the open court on this Thursday 01stday of December, 2022.