THINKSYNQ CONSULTING LLP,CHENNAI vs. ITO NCW E, CHENNAI

The first issue arises for consideration is with regard to addition of ₹14,27,208/- being the difference in the tax deducted at source and the income disclosed by the assessee.

Shri A. Mahesh, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that M/s Aircel Cellular Limited erroneously uploaded TDS in the name of the assessee. According to the Ld. representative, the assessee has not rendered any service to Aircel Cellular Limited and no fees was received from them. Therefore, according to the Ld. representative, erroneously uploaded TDS statement by Aircel Cellular Limited cannot be the basis for making any addition. Similarly, a sum of ₹1,36,891/- was also erroneously uploaded by Aircel Limited in the name of the assessee. Hence, according to the Ld. representative, the erroneous statement filed by the Aircel Limited also cannot be a basis for making any addition.

On the contrary, Shri A. Sasikumar, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that there was a mismatch between the income returned and TDS deducted. According to the Ld. D.R., the turnover as per service tax return and income-tax return was reconciled by the assessee, which was accepted by the Assessing Officer also. However, according to the Ld. D.R., in respect of

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. The assessee claims that M/s Aircel Cellular Limited and M/s Aircel Limited erroneously uploaded TDS in the name of the assessee even though the assessee has not rendered any service to them. In view of this submission of the assessee, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be verified. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the issue is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter and bring on record the actual service rendered by the assessee and payment received by the assessee including the tax deducted at source and thereafter decide the issue

The next issue arises for consideration is failure of the Assessing Officer to give credit to TDS.

Shri A. Mahesh, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the Assessing Officer has given credit of ₹6,61,452/- only as against ₹6,73,257/- claimed in the return. According to the Ld. representative, as per Form 26AS and copies of TDS statement filed in Form 16A, the TDS was ₹6,73,257/-. However, the Assessing Officer has given credit of ₹6,61,452/- only.

We heard Shri A. Sasikumar, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. Since the assessee claims that the actual TDS as per Form 16A and as per the return filed, was ₹6,73,257/- and the Assessing Officer has given credit only to the extent of ₹6,61,452/-, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside the issue is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter and thereafter decide

The next issue arises for consideration is levy of interest under Section 234A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') to the extent of ₹1,87,480/-.

Shri A. Mahesh, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the assessment resulted in a refund of ₹1,87,480/-. In order to avoid refund, according to the Ld. representative, the Assessing Officer levied interest to the extent of ₹1,87,480/-. The assessee filed a Miscellaneous Petition under Section 154 of the Act. According to the Ld. representative, the Assessing Officer accepted that the interest was wrongly levied under Section 234A of the Act and without rectifying the mistake, the same was forwarded to another officer and still it is pending.

We heard Shri A. Sasikumar, the Ld. Departmental Representative also. The assessee claims that the assessment resulted in a refund of ₹1,87,480/- and in order to avoid refund, the Assessing Officer levied interest under Section 234A of the Act. The assessee has claimed before this Tribunal that in a proceeding

The next issue arises for consideration is non-grant of

We heard Shri Shri A. Mahesh, the Ld. representative for the

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