What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the difference of Rs. 56,28,179/- required verification at the AO's level. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh assessment after the assessee files relevant documents and is given an opportunity to be heard.

The assessee's income was assessed with an addition of Rs. 56,28,197/- due to a difference between receipts in Form 26AS and the assessee's books of accounts. The CIT(A) confirmed this addition as the assessee failed to provide necessary confirmations.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of discrepancies between Form 26AS and the assessee's books is sustainable without proper verification of supporting documents.

Sanjeevkumar Pandey vs ACIT | ITAT Mumbai 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “J” MUMBAI

Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN

For Appellant: Mr. Devendra Jain, AR

For Respondent: Mr. Ram Tiwari, DR

Hearing: 10/07/2018Pronounced: 18/07/2018

ORDER

PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM

This is an appeal filed by the assessee. The relevant assessment year is 2012-13. The appeal is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2 [in short ‘CIT(A)’], Thane and arises out of the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act 1961, (the ‘Act’).

The ground of appeal

reads as under: “On the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.56,28,197/- to the service income of the assessee based on the wrong ETDS returns filed by the assessee’s clients. The concerned parties/clients have submitted the ledger confirmations/certificates disclosing the actual payments made to the assessee. The rectification of ETDS returns is not Sanjeevkumar Pandey done at the end of the clients/parties over which the assessee has no control and has thus put him to hardship.”

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of freight forwarding under the name and style ‘Shoolin Shipping Services (India) Pvt. Ltd.’. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that there was a difference of Rs.1,63,86,721/- between the receipts as reflected in Form 26AS vis-a-vis receipts reflected in the books of accounts. Therefore, the AO made an addition of the above amount to the income shown by the assessee.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) deleted an amount of Rs.1,07,60,524/- from the above amount of Rs.1,63,86,721/- on the ground that the assessee could file the necessary details/reconciliation. However, he confirmed the balance amount of Rs.56,28,197/- as the assessee could not reconcile/file necessary confirmation letters before him from the concerned parties.

5. Before us, the Ld. counsel of the assessee files a Paper Book (P/B) containing (i) copy of confirmation letter from Inteva Products India Authomative Pvt. Ltd., (ii) copy of relevant extract of 26AS, (iii) copy of our ledger in the books of Fleet Guard Filters Pvt. Ltd., (iv) copy of reconciliation statement and (v) copy of invoices of FY 2011- 12 booked in Fleet Guard Filters Pvt. Ltd. FY 2011-12. The Ld. counsel submits that as per the TDS return filed by Fleetguard Filters Pvt. Ltd., the appellant’s income is Rs.3,30,74,174/- which is reflected in the 26AS of the assessee. Further, as per the client’s own books of accounts, the amount of billing as per their

SANJEEVKUMAR PANDEY,MUMBAI vs. ACIT CIR 3, THANE

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