HIRA LAL AGARWAL,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIR-1, SILIGURI, SILIGURI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 20/KOL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 January 2018AY 2011-20123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Form 16 issued by the employer to the employee should prevail over Form 26AS. The assessee cannot be held responsible for discrepancies between these forms issued by the employer.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer noted a discrepancy of Rs. 2,87,989/- between the salary income disclosed in Form 26AS and Form 16. The CIT(A) upheld the addition based on Form 26AS.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was which document, Form 26AS or Form 16, should be relied upon when there is a discrepancy in salary income disclosed by the employer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S. S. Viswanethra Ravi]

Hira Lal Agarwal………..……….…...……….……………………………………………….…….……...Appellant C/o. Kishore Kumar Lohia 2nd Floor Smritidham Building Opposite Hotel Gate Way Sevoke Road Siliguri - 734001 [PAN : ACMPA 4071B] A.C.I.T., Circle-1(TDS), Kolkata…………………………………………..…………………..…. Respondent Aayakar Bhawan Paribahan Nagar Matigara Siliguri Appearances by: Shri Subhash Agarwal, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, DR appearing on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : December 19th, 2017 Date of pronouncing the order : January 05th , 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Siliguri, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 20/11/2015, for the Assessment Year 2011-12.

2.

In this case, the Assessing Officer found that there is a variation in the quantum of salary income earned by the assessee as disclosed in Form 26AS, uploaded by the company and Form No. 16, issued to the assessee. The difference was Rs.2,87,989/-. The amount disclosed in Form No. 26AS, was taken as the gross salary of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A), reverse calculated the total income of the assessee based on the TDS made, and determined that the Assessing Officer was correct.

2 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Hira Lal Agarwal 2.1. Aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us.

3.

After hearing rival contentions, we are of the opinion that the figure mentioned in Form No. 16, issued by the employer of the assessee has to prevails over any figure show by the employer in Form No. 26AS. In any event, the Assessing Officer should have enquired with the employer about this variation as both Form No. 16 and Form No. 26AS, have been issue by the employer. The employee cannot be held responsible for such differences. Thus, we delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer and direct him to accept the contents of the certificate issue in Form 16 issued by the employer to the employee.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Kolkata, the 5th day of January, 2018. Sd/- Sd/- [S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] [J. Sudhakar Reddy] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated : 05.01.2018 {SC SPS} Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Hira Lal Agarwal C/o. Kishore Kumar Lohia 2nd Floor Smritidham Building Opposite Hotel Gate Way Sevoke Road Siliguri – 734001 2. A.C.I.T., Circle-1(TDS), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan Paribahan Nagar Matigara Siliguri 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →