JULIUS GERARDUS THEODORUS VAN WIJCK S VAN WIJCK,NETHERLAND vs. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1)(1), INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found duplicate entries in Form 26AS and directed the deletion of the addition made under income from other sources. The salary income was determined at Rs. 66,77,248/-, and credit for TDS amounting to Rs. 18,57,271/- was to be granted.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a non-resident, received salary income in India. The Assessing Officer (AO) reopened the case and made additions for income from other sources and salary, treating Rs. 94,03,473/- as total income. The assessee contended that Rs. 27,26,225/- was due to duplicate entries in Form 26AS.
What were the issues?
Whether the addition on account of income from other sources was justified given duplicate entries in Form 26AS, and whether TDS credit should be granted against salary income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 147,Section 148,Section 144,Section 143(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI
Before: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’ble & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar
ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:- The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of Assessing Officer dated 31.01.2023 for the AY 2013-14. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal are as under:-
1. The AO erred in treating an amount of Rs. 27,26,225/- as income from other sources in India while ignoring the duplicate entries in Form 26AS of the assessee.
2. The AO erred in not granting credit of TDS amounting to Rs. 18,57,271/- against its salary income amounting to Rs. 66,77,248/-.
The assessee is a non-resident individual who earned Salary income in India during Assessment Year 2013-14 by virtue of his employment with M/s Greenply Industries Limited
Julius Gerardus Theodorus Van Wijck (the Employer). The assessee has not filed any return of income for the relevant assessment year. The AO observed that the assessee has received a sum of Rs. 94,03,473/- from M/s Green ply Industries Ltd. and reopened the case u/s 147 of the Act after recording reasons and obtaining necessary approval of the competent authority for the issue of notice u/s 148 dated 30.03.2021. The AO completed the assessment which culminated in the addition of Rs. 94,03,470/- as under: i) Income from OS Rs. 27,26,225/- ii) Salary Income Rs. 66,77,248/- Total Income Rs. 94,03,473/-
Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record.
The AO issued a final SCN dated 03.03.2022 whereby the assessee was required to file details and documents in support of the receipts from his employer amounting to Rs. 94,03,473. However, the assessee did not file any ITR and the AO proceeded to complete the assessment on the basis of section 144 of the act on the basis of details and documents available on record. The AO has noted that he issued a notice u/s 143(6) to M/s Greenply Industries Ltd. on 23.03.2022 to ascertain the nature of receipts/transactions. It is observed that as per the response of M/s Greenply Industries Ltd. the assessee received a salary amounting to Rs. 66,77,248/- during the year under consideration. The assessee has submitted that the whole of amount of Rs. 94,03,473/ is relatable to salary provided by M/s Greenply Industries Ltd. It is submitted that the assessee has Julius Gerardus Theodorus Van Wijck received only Rs. 66,77,248/- as salary from his employer. It is submitted by the assessee that the additional amount of Rs. 27,26,225/- is the result of duplicate entries in the Form 26AS, source of which is unknown to the assessee.
The DRP held that, the assessee was granted several opportunities by the AO to explain/substantiate the receipts from his employer as reflected in Form 26AS of the assessee. However, the assessee did not respond to the repeated notices issued by the AO. The AO was in possession of the document, that is Form 26AS, which evidenced that the assessee received a sum of Rs. 94,03,473/-from his employer. Hence the DRP held that, it is incumbent upon the assessee to furnish necessary explanation in this regard which he failed to do so despite repeated opportunities provided to him by the AO.
We have gone through Form 26AS and find there are some duplicate entries. Hence, we hold that the addition made on account of Rs. 27,26,225/- under the head income from other sources be deleted. We direct that the income from salary is determined Rs. 66,77,248/- and the corresponding credit as per the Form 16 for TDS Rs. 18,57,271/-be given. The JAO shall verify the figures and grant relief as directed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 08/12/2023.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Utkal Highways, Bidanasi vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pradeep Kumar Behera vs. Superintendent CGST And Central Excise., CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Manas Behera vs. Commissioner, CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Pramod Kumar Nayak vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, KendraparaOrissa · 16 Oct 2026
- Nirmal Kumar Sharma S/O Ram Swroop Sharma vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 16 Oct 2026