Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘H’ : NEW DELHI
PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld.
CIT (Appeals)/NFAC dated 21.12.2022 pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18.
The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :-
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO at Rs.22,42,644/- solely on the basis of entries in Form 26AS of Smt Versha Rani Gupta. 2. The ld. CIT(A) erred in appreciating the fact that the receipts of Rs.27,54,046 pertains to a firm M/s Shiva Enterprises, in which assessee is ./2023 a partner and these receipts have been declared in the ITR of MIs Shiva Enterprises and taxed therein, thus taxing the same receipts twice over. 3. That the ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred In not appreciating the fact that assessee's first appeal was against the CPC, not acting on the assessee's petition u/s 154 of the I T Act, 1961.”
In this case, intimation under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') was passed on 31.08.2018 at an income of Rs.27,54,046/- instead of returned income of Rs.5,20,992/-. The addition was made on the basis of Form 26AS. The assessee filed rectification petition under section 154 of the Act. However, in the rectification order, no change was made in the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act.
Against this, assessee appealed before the ld. CIT (A). Firstly, ld. CIT (A) held that the issue is not arising out of 154 order and assessee should have challenged the order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act. Still, he held the matter on merits that assessee is claiming that the receipts shown in the name of the assessee are already subsumed in the receipts of the firm, M/s. Shiva Enterprises, in which the assessee is 99% partner.
However, ld. CIT (A) held no break-up and details has been given, hence he dismissed the assessee’s appeal. He also noted that Form 26AS of the Firm was not submitted.
Against this order, assessee is in appeal before us. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. income. Since the contract was originally in the name of the assessee, the TDS was shown in her name. Hence, it is a request of the ld. Counsel of the assessee to remand the matter to the file of AO for factual verification of the submission of the assessee. Ld. DR of the Revenue fairly agreed to the proposition. Hence, in the interest of justice, we remit the issue to the file of AO. The AO is directed to consider the issue afresh by going through the submissions of the assessee. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 16th day of August, 2022.