Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, PUNE
BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND G.D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Shailesh Padmakar Puntambekar ACIT, Circle - 11 29, Renuka Kalarang Society Pune Vs. Patwardhan Baug Erandwane, Pune 411004 PAN –ABQPP4962M Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Mrs. J.R. Chandekar Respondent by: Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of Hearing: 18.08.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 26.08.2022 O R D E R
Per S.S. Godara, JM
This assessee’s appeal for AY 2014-15 arises against the CIT(A)-1, Pune’s order dated 29.06.2017 passed in case No. CIT (A), Pune-1/10559/2016-17 involving proceedings under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act).
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
The assessee has raised the following sole substantive grounds in the instant appeal: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified in confirming the addition made by the A.O. at Rs.6,70,939/- it being difference in 26AS of the transactions. It is settled law then, and when the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP of the Deptt. that the difference in 26AS cannot be an income of the appellant. The addition be deleted. 2, On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the filing of the appeal is delayed by few days. The appellant was prevented by sufficient cause. The application for condonation of delay along with sworn affidavit will be filed at the time of hearing. The delay be condoned and appeal be admitted for hearing.”
We next advert to the assessment and CIT (A)’s detailed discussion wherein the sole substantive issue of addition of Rs.6,70,939/- arises for our apt adjudication. Suffice to say, the assessee appears to have declared an amount of only Rs.1,31,12,296/- (inclusive of Rs.12,00,000/- representing salary) in the relevant previous year. He was admittedly a Director in M/s. Galaxy Care Laparoscopy Institute Pvt. Ltd. (GCLIPL). Both the lower authorities proceeded on the basis of Form 26AS from the payer’s side i.e. GCLIPL indicating the alleged figure of Rs.1,37,83,275/- than that declared of Rs.1,31,12,296/- to conclude that the differential amount of Rs.6,70,979/- deserved to the added in his hands.
Learned D.R. could hardly dispute that there is no indication at all revealing the impugned sum to have been actually paid or credited in assessee’s books or bank account; as the case may be. Faced with this situation, we conclude that the learned lower authorities have erred in law and facts in making the impugned addition going by payer’s 26AS only. The assessee succeeds in his instant sole substantive ground.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed.