Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : SMC-I : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL
ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 1.7.2014 in relation to the assessment year 2011-12.
The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.4,18,831/-, being the amount of excess taxable salary as per revised Form No.26AS.
Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee, an IAS Officer, declared to have received salary of Rs.12,12,233/- during the year on which tax was deducted at source amounting to Rs.1,88,688/-.
The AO, on the perusal of Form No. 26AS, observed that the assessee had shown to have received total salary of Rs.20,22,971/-. On being called upon to clarify his stand, the assessee submitted that he received salary only to the tune of Rs.12.12 lac and the remaining salary shown in Form 26AS at Rs.8.10 lac and TDS of Rs.1.02 lac did not relate to him. The AO did not accept the assessee’s contention and added the differential amount of Rs.8,10,738/- to the total income. The assessee filed revised Form No.26AS before the ld. CIT(A), showing salary income as under:-
Sl. No. Name of the Employer Amount of salary received. (i) Nagar Nigam, Moradabad Rs. 3,42,124/- (ii) Treasury Office, Bareilly Rs.11,33,002/- (iii) Bulandshahr Dev. Auth. Rs. 1,55,940/- Total Salary Rs.16,31,066/-
It was claimed that the salary shown by Treasury Office, Bareilly at Rs.11,33,002/- was wrong. Not convinced with the assessee’s submissions, the ld. CIT(A) came to hold that the assessee received salary 2
Rs.16.31 lac. This resulted into confirmation of addition to the tune of Rs.4,18,831/- (Rs.16,31,066 - Rs.12,12,235/-).
The assessee is aggrieved against this addition.
I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The ld. AR fairly submitted that from the Table reproduced above, the salary shown to have been received from Nagar Nigam, Moradabad and Bulandshahr Development Authority is correct . He submitted that the assessee was posted on duty during the year at three places mentioned above. It was claimed that the salary shown in the revised 26AS by Treasury Office, Bareilly at Rs.11,33,002/- was wrong.
A copy of revised Form No.26AS showing salary paid/credited at Rs.11,33,002/- is available on page 9 of the paper book. It can be seen that there are 17 transactions under main head no.
5. The ld. AR submitted that the salary payments shown at Sl. No.13 to 17 do not pertain to the assessee as during this period he was working with Nagar Nigam, Moradabad, from which the salary was separately shown. A certificate issued by Office of the Chief Treasury Officer, Bareilly showing receipt of gross salary at Rs.6,96,367/- and the corresponding amount of TDS is 3
6 of the paper book. This is against the salary of Rs.11,33,002/- recorded in revised Form No.26AS. Since there is contradiction in the certificate issued by the Office of Chief Treasury Officer, Bareilly and the revised Form No.26AS, I cannot properly adjudicate the issue. Under these circumstances, the impugned order is set aside and the AO is directed to examine the assessee’s claim qua the receipt of salary shown at Sl. Nos.13 to 17 in Form No. 26AS for ascertaining if the assessee actually received this amount of salary from Treasury Office, Bareilly and then deciding accordingly. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed an opportunity of hearing in such fresh proceedings.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order pronounced in the open court on 15.09.2016.