MANISH KUMAR VIJAY,KOTA vs. ITO, KOTA

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR

Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 484/JP/2025
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACKPV4011C vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing

: 09/07/2025

mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 06/08/2025

vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM

On being aggrieved by the order of the National Faceless Appeal
Centre, Delhi [ for short CIT(A) ] dated 30/01/2025 the present appeal is presented. The dispute relates to the assessment year 2017-18. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arises because the assessee has challenged the assessment order dated 20.10.2020 passed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by CPC, Bangalore [ for short AO].

2
2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: -

“1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the action of Ld. AO at CPC passed, while disposing rectification application u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act. The very order passed, is bad in law and without juri iction. Hence, the same may kindly be quashed.

4
5. As is evident from the record that the assessee did not response to the notices so issued by the ld. CIT(A) and since the assessee could not brought on record contrary to that effect the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed. Feeling dissatisfied, the assessee preferred the present appeal before this tribunal on the grounds stated herein above. To support the various grounds raised by the assessee, ld. AR of the assessee, has filed the following written submissions:
1. Appellant is an individual, engaged in the business of providing lighting, decoration, pandal, shamiyana and similar type of services.

Sr. No.
Particulars
Amount (Rs.)
A.
Gross Turnover declared u/s 44AD of the Act
9,01,460
B.
Presumptive Income u/s 44AD on the declared turnover of Rs. 9,01,460 [A]
4,35,220
C.
Income From Other Sources
69,728
D.
Loss From House Property
-38,129
E.
Gross Total Income (B+C-D)
4,66,819
F.
Deduction u/s 80C
1,17,392
G.
Deduction u/s 80TTA
3,113
H.
Total Income [E-F-G]
3,46,314

I.
Rounded off

“There is inconsistenc of business on presum against section 194C [

M f he return was processed u/s 143(1) of th omputing the total business turnover at R ver is the sum of all the ‘Final’ entries
/ Credited’ column of FORM 26AS of the ed 15.11.2018 is enclosed. [PBP 9 to 18]
the return was processed with the additi siness turnover of the appellant. The s e on account of alleged difference in turn pts available in FORM 26AS which resu pancy, as stated in order u/s 143(1) is re cy in the amount shown in Sr.no.E1 under 44
mptive basis] of Schedule BP and receipts a [Payment to contractors]”
schedule of the Intimation tabulating di
.11.2018 is also produced below for refer tated mismatch/discrepancy, in Form 26
, was the result of wrong reporting
(UIT), Kota, while filing it’s TDS return.
Rs. 14,98,616/-. The reflecting, under the e appellant. Copy of ion of Rs. 5,97,156/- said addition of Rs.
over declared by the ulted into demand of e-produced below for 4AD [Profits and gains available in Form 26AS iscrepancy, in order, rence:
6AS and Income tax of PAN by Urban
26AS is enclosed. [PBP 19 to 22]

Section Transaction
Date
Date of Booking
Amount (Rs.)
TDS deducted
(Rs.)
194C
17-08-2016
27-10-2016
59,630
1,193
194C
17-08-2016
27-10-2016
3,16,578
6,332
194C
17-08-2016
27-10-2016
2,69,413
5,389
194C
17-08-2016
27-10-2016
1,82,156
3,644
194C
17-08-2016
27-10-2016
1,69,539
3,391

194C
17-08-2016
27-10-2016
-59630
-1,193
194C
17-08-2016
27-10-2016
-3,16,578
-6,332
194C
17-08-2016
27-10-2016
-2,69,413
-5,389
194C
17-08-2016
27-10-2016
-1,82,156
-3,644
194C
17-08-2016
27-10-2016
-1,69,539
-3,391
Net Total
0
0

7
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the action of Ld. AO at CPC passed, while disposing rectification application u/s 154 of the Income Tax Act. The very order passed, is bad in law and without juri iction. Hence, the same may kindly be quashed.

Ground of Appeal No.2
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO at CPC by upholding the addition of Rs. 2,88,304/-, due to mismatch in Form 26AS, which was not relating to the assessee and has later been reversed. Hence, the addition so upheld, is unjustified and excessive, and may kindly be deleted.

Ground of Appeal No.3
The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law as well as on the facts of the case by dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee without appreciating the facts of the case. The dismissal so made is unjustified and may kindly be reversed.
Findings of the Ld. CIT(A): (Para 6.1 at page no. 5 of the Order)
“6.1. Grounds of appeal relate to addition of Rs. 2,88,304/- regarding income on receipts of Rs. 5,97,156/-, in the order passed on 20.10.2020. I have carefully considered Form No. 35, statement of facts, the order u/s 154 and the grounds of appeal raised. The appellant has not submitted any documentary evidence in support of his claim that at the time of filling of return of income some entry which was not related to him reflected in his 26 AS due to wrong PAN enter in TDS return filed by UIT Kota, which was rectified by the UIT and also reversed in Form
26AS of the appellant.”

Submission:
A.
Receipts/ Turnover under consideration is not related to the Appellant:
1. As stated, in the facts, above that the appellant filed his return of income u/s 139(1) declaring business turnover of Rs. 9,01,460/- u/s 44AD of the Act.
However, while processing the return of income u/s 143(1), CPC Bangalore erroneously added Rs. 5,97,156/- to the declared turnover.

8
3. Accordingly, the income of the appellant was computed by applying presumptive rate, as taken by the appellant, on alleged turnover of Rs. 5,97,156/- and arrived at the additional presumptive income of Rs. 2,88,304/-. The said addition enhanced the income of the appellant from Rs. 3,46,310/- to Rs.
6,34,614/- (3,46,310 + 2,88,304) for the year.

9
11. Further, as a matter of clarification, it is humbly submitted that, as explained above, the reason for discrepancy was inadvertent reporting of appellant’s PAN, by UIT, Kota, in its TDS Return PAN instead of the PAN of the actual deductee: Manish Vijay (HUF). In support of this claim, the appellant is hereby enclosing FORM 26AS of Manish Vijay (HUF) which is carrying all entries which were wrongly reported under appellant’s PAN. [PBP 34 to 37] This clarification further strengthens the claim of the appellant that the receipts reflecting in FORM 26AS do not relate to him.

B.
No addition can be made solely based on FORM 26AS:
Submission:
1. It is humbly submitted that it is a settled legal position that no addition can be made solely on the basis of FORM 26AS for the simple reason that income tax is levied/ charged on the income of a person and mere reflection of receipts in FORM 26AS does not prove, beyond doubt, that such receipts is the income of the said person.
2. Accordingly, the entries appearing in FORM 26AS are subject to further verification in case the appellant has not considered the same in his/ her income and the onus is on the AO to bring independent and cogent evidence on record

10
26AS entries, without verifying the genuineness of the income or the correctness of PAN details, are not sustainable. In this regard, we rely on the following case laws:


Hon’ble ITAT, Surat in the case of Dr Swati Mahesh Vinchurkar Vs DCIT,
CPC, Bangalore [I.T.A No. 43/SRT/2021], dated 28.06.2021, held as under:

“While filing her return of income the assessee has shown income from profession and other sources. During the process by CPC, the additions were made in the hand of assessee on the basis of TDS shown in Form-26AS. We find that in response to the notice of CPC, the assessee denied of having such income and that her response was ignored. Before Ld. CIT(A) the assessee again specifically contended that she has not earned such income nor any work was performed by her. We find that despite specific contention of the assessee, the ld CIT(A) instead of verifying the facts confirmed the additions by taking view that it seems that CPC had considered the appellant explanation before making disallowance and that there is prima facie evidence. We find that both the authorities below acted in a mechanical way. There is no consideration of the contentions raised by the assessee that she has not worked or earned any income from such deductor. In our view once the assessee denied that she has not earned such income as reflected in her Form-26 AS, the onus shift on the revenue authorities to prove such income of the assessee. The addition is based solely on the basis of TDS shown in Form-26AS, ignoring the submissions of the assessee. The ld. AR for the assessee vehemently argued before us that the deductor if more than 1000 KM away from the place of practice of assessee. Considering the peculiar facts of the present case, we find merit in the submissions of the ld AR for the assessee that the assessee

11
ITO (supra) held that merely because a payment was reflected in Form-26AS and was shown to have been made to the assessee, it could not be brought to tax as it could not be established that the assessee was actual beneficiary of said payments and the additions was liable to be deleted. Considering the above said factual and legal discussions, and keeping in view of the peculiar facts of the case, no purpose would serve to restore the matter back to the file of assessing officer or to Income–tax Officer
(TDS), as prayed by ld Sr.DR for the revenue. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed.
7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.”

In light of the above, it is humbly prayed that the addition, made solely on the basis of Form 26AS, be deleted.

C.
Onus to prove was on the revenue since appellant denied the receipts:

12
“So the Ld. CIT(A) notes that it is difficult to conclude the information in respect of TDS amount shown in Form 26AS from the TDS deductor as conclusive against the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) observed as under:
“4.16. Since the income has been added, the AO is legally required to prove that the said income accrued to the appellant or was received by it. The burden is on the AO to prove the alleged fact. On the contrary in the assessment proceedings, the AO demanded the appellant to prove that the amount appearing in Form 26AS did not belong to the appellant. In any case, it is difficult to prove the negative for the appellant, who seems to have submitted good amount of papers to the AO to support its case on the issue concerned. For the purposes of the appellate order, I hold that the AO has proceeded without any material to hold that the appellant had earned Rs. 2,14,35,593/-. I further hold that Form 26AS alone cannot lead to addition of income if claims are made of wrong data entry/information and lack of corresponding services by the deductee to the deductor.”

……
…..
….. Therefore, on the facts and circumstances discussed above we find the view of the Ld. CIT(A) to be a plausible view and accordingly his action of deleting Rs. 2,14,35,593/- is confirmed and therefore, the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed.”
In view of above, the appellant most humbly prays for justice.

13
being the application for rectification of mistake stating that mismatch/discrepancy, in Form 26AS and Income tax return of appellant, was the result of wrong reporting of PAN by Urban Improvement Trust
(UIT), Kota, while filing it’s TDS return. The assessee also submitted that he, in his individual capacity, has no relation with UIT, Kota. Copy of Form
26AS placed on record at page 19 to 22. Since those wrong entries do not pertain to the appellant, however, UIT, Kota inadvertently mentioned PAN of the appellant in its TDS return instead of PAN of actual deductee/payee resulting into excess amount in 26AS as against the turnover declared by the appellant. However, the said error was subsequently corrected/ rectified by way of revision of TDS return by UIT, Kota. Thus, when the source i.e.
FORM 26AS, for making addition, itself establishing that no receipts were credited to the appellant by UIT, Kota. Thus, based on that set of facts we see no reason to sustain the addition of Rs. 2,88,304/- and thereby we direct to delete the same.

15
Order pronounced in the open court on 06/08/2025. ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½
¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½
(Dr. S. Seethalakshmi)
(Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai)
U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member

Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 06/08/2025
*Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. The Appellant- Manish Kumar Vijay, Kota
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-2(1), Kota
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A)
5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 484/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत