Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT
Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH & SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, AM:
This appeal by assessee emanates from the order dated 30.08.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short, “the ld. CIT(A)”] for the assessment year (AY) 2017-18.
The grounds of appeal
raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as in law, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.7,78,070/- on account of undisclosed rent received as per Form 26AS, whereas it was explained that the figure of rent in Form 26As was wrong and erroneous.”
3. The facts of the case in brief are that assessee filed original return on 27.10.2017, declaring total income at Rs.24,22,280/-. Subsequently, /AY.2017-18 Shree Kuberji Developers assessee filed revised return on 31.03.2018, declaring total income at Rs.1,09,93,760/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. On perusal of 26AS and details filed by assessee, it was found by Assessing Officer (in short, ‘AO’) that there is a mismatch between the receipts as per 26AS and the return of income filed by assessee. The assessee had shown rent of Rs.9,41,930/- but as per 26AS the rent received from M/s. Ashish Publicity was Rs.17,20,000/- on which TDS was also deducted. The assessee was issued show cause notice which was not replied to. Hence, AO added the difference of Rs.7,78,070/- [17,20,000 – 9,41,930] to the total income. He also added undisclosed interest income of Rs.15,902/-.
4. Aggrieved, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee submitted that the prayer of the rent i.e., M/s Ashish Publicity filed TDS return containing details of two years rent at a time and therefore, amount of Rs.17,20,000/- is reflected in Form 26AS. This amount includes rent of Rs.8,00,000/- for AY.2016-17 and Rs.9,20,000/- for AY.2017-18. The assessee had shown Rs.8,00,000/- in AY.2015-16 and Rs.9,20,000/- in AY.2017-18. The CIT(A) did not accept contention of the assessee because it failed to furnish any lease agreement with M/s Ashish Publicity to support its claim. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. At the outset, learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of /AY.2017-18 Shree Kuberji Developers the assessee submitted that rent of two years were paid by M/s Ashish Publicity and the same was offered in AY.2016-17 (Rs.8,00,000/-) and 2017-18 (Rs.9,20,000/-). He submitted that the matter may be remitted to the AO for verification of assessee’s claim.
On the other hand, learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue relied on the orders of the lower authorities.
We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The ld. AR contended that total rent of Rs.17,20,000/- was paid by M/s Ashish Developers for FY.2015-16 and 2016-17 (AY.2016-17 and 2017-18). Rent of Rs.8,00,000/- pertains to AY.2016-17 and Rs.9,20,000/- pertains to the year under consideration (AY.2017-18). He submitted that assessee has shown the above rents in the respective assessment years. After considering the facts of the case and claim of the assessee before us, we deem it proper to set aside the matter to the file of AO to verify claim of the assessee that rent of Rs.8,00,000/- was shown by assessee in AY.2016-17. If it is offered for taxation in AY.2016-17, the AO should reduce the said rental income from the income of AY.2017-18. As per Rule 37BA(3) of IT Rules, 1962, credit for tax deducted at source and paid to the Central Government, shall be given for the assessment year for which such income is assessable. The AO should, therefore, withdraw the credit of TDS claimed on total rent of Rs.17,20,000/- in the current assessment year after