ASST CIT 22(3), MUMBAI vs. SHARAD TONDON, MUMBAI

The Revenue is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 08/12/2016 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai, deleting the addition of Rs.83,35,824/- without considering the factual matrix and further without providing opportunity to the Ld. Assessing Officer to verify the facts, as required under Rule-46A of the I.T. Rules. During hearing, the ld.

DR, Chudhary Arun Kumar Singh, defended the addition

made by the Ld. Assessing Officer by contending that while

granting relief to the assessee, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), admitted additional evidence and even

no remand report was called from the Ld. Assessing Officer.

Thus, it is violation of Rule-46A of the I.T. Rules. On the other hand, Shri S. M. Bandi, defended the impugned order

by explaining that no addition evidence was filed before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal).

are that the assessee derives income from salary, house

property and from other sources, declared total income of Rs.69,00,340/- in his return filed on 25/03/2013, which was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act,

1961 (hereinafter the Act). The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny, therefore, notices under section 143(2)

and 142(1) of the Act were served upon the assessee. The assessee attended the proceedings and filed the details

called for in support of its claim. On perusal of such details, the Ld. Assessing Officer found that as per 26AS, there was undisclosed TDS of Rs.8,43,590/- and further the assessee

did not offer any business income. The claim of the assessee was that the corresponding income for the said

TDS have already been offered by the company in the return

of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 and also the deducted TDS has already been claimed by the company.

The assessee explained vide reply dated 26/03/2015, which has been reproduced in the assessment order. However, the ld. Assessing Officer added the corresponding income of Rs.83,35,824/- as income from other sources. On appeal

before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), the factual matrix was considered and deleted the addition

made by the ld. Assessing Officer by observing that the corresponding income for the said TDS has already been offered by M/s Tandon Urban Solutions Pvt. Ltd. in its return for Assessment Year 2012-13 and the TDS, so deducted has already been claimed by the company. The Revenue is aggrieved and is in appeal before this Tribunal.

We have perused the record and find that the factual finding

recorded in the impugned order is substantiated with facts and the documents filed before the Ld. Assessing Officer

were also filed before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax

(Appeal), thus, the contention of the Revenue that additional

evidence was filed before the Ld. Commissioner of Income

Tax (Appeal) is factually incorrect. The necessary details

were duly filed by the assessee during assessment

proceedings itself, thus, taxing the same again in the hands

of the assessee would tantamount to double addition i.e.

taxing the same income twice, consequently, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), resultantly, the appeal of the Revenue

is dismissed.

Finally, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

This Order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on17/10/2018. (Ramit Kochar) (Joginder Singh) लेखा सद"य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा"य" /VICE PRESIDENT मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांक Dated : 22/10/2018 f{x~{tÜ? P.S /"नजी स"चव आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.