What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, directing the Assessing Officer to verify the evidence provided by the assessee, including a letter from the bank, and delete the addition if the amount was accounted for in the hands of the correct payee.

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the assessee's income based on a discrepancy in the 26AS statement from Bank of India. The assessee contended that the TDS reflected in 26AS pertained to a payment made to Shri Karan Kapoor, not to him.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO based on 26AS statement was justified when the assessee provided evidence of a clerical error by the bank and the correct payee.

Virender Kumar Kapoor, New Delhi vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Gupta, CA

For Respondent: Ms. Yamini, Sr.DR

O R D E R

PER R. K. PANDA, AM :

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.12.2015 of CIT(A)- 18, New Delhi relating to assessment year 2011-12.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 28.09.2011 declaring total income of Rs.2,07,958/-. The Assessing Officer, on the basis of some discrepancy in the 26AS statement, made addition of Rs.5,00,000/- to the total income of the assessee, which is the subject matter of appeal. 3. So far as addition of Rs.5,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer is concerned, the same relates to non-accounting of income corresponding to the TDS reflected in 26AS statement submitted by Bank of India.

Before the ld. CIT(A), it was submitted that the amount reflected in 26AS statement of Bank of India relates to payment made to Shri Karan Kapoor and not to the assessee i.e. Shri Virender Kapoor. A letter from the bank to this effect was also filed before the ld. CIT(A) stating the mistake committed by the bank. Based on the arguments advanced by the assessee and evidences filed before him, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition subject to verification that the amount of Rs.5,00,000/- has been duly accounted for in the hands of the right payee after examination of the facts mentioned in the letter of Bank of India dated 21.04.2014.

Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

I have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. I find the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.5,00,000/- on the basis of 26AS statement of Bank of India reflecting a payment of Rs.5,00,000/- to the assessee. Since there was some error in 26AS statement, the assessee filed a letter from Bank of India explaining the error.

Based on the evidences filed, the ld. CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the said evidence and delete the addition from the hands of the assessee subject to verification. I do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) directing the Assessing Officer to verify the evidence filed before him and also find out whether the same amount has been reflected in the hands of the correct payee. Therefore, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is upheld. Thus, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition from the hands of the assessee subject to verification of the evidence filed before him. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court at the time of hearing itself i.e. on this 21st day of November, 2017.

VIRENDER KUMAR KAPOOR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments