Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, [ DELHI BENCH “H” : DELHI ]
Before: SHRI G. S. PANNUSHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD
आदेश / O R D E R PER C. N. PRASAD, J. M. :
1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-31 [hereinafter referred 1 to CIT (Appeals)] New Delhi, dated 14.08.2019 for assessment year 2012-13 in sustaining the addition of Rs.8,59,423/- on account of difference in income reflected in Form 26AS and the income declared in the Income tax return on account of reimbursement of expenses, difference in the financial year of booking of expenses and/or deduction of TDS and double booking of TDS customers.
In spite of service of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee. This appeal is disposed of on hearing the ld. DR. 3. While completing the assessment the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.56,55,722/- being the difference in the consultancy income as per 26AS and Income tax return for the difference and financial statements for the assessment year 2012-13 shown in the Income tax return. The assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT (Appeals) and the ld. CIT (Appeals) considering the submissions of the assessee restricted the addition to the extent of Rs.8,59,423/- observing that the claim of the assessee is not verifiable. It is observed that before the ld. CIT (Appeals) the assessee contended that the receipts to the extent of Rs.8,59,423/- have been disclosed in earlier years on accrual basis to give deductors deducted tax at source on payment basis. The assessee made written submissions explaining the difference as under:- “ Explanation on additions because of addition amount reflecting in 26AS then recorded in Books (Impact addition of Rs.7,01,227/-
Under provisions of Section 194J the consumer is supposed to deduct tax at source from payments to be made or credit of the invoices whichever is earlier
8. Tax so deducted and the amount of payment made or amount credit to the account of the assesse appear in Form 26AS of the deductee.
However, sometimes the deductors fail to deduct tax in the year when invoices are booked and they later deduct the tax at source alternatively they book the invoice in the subsequent year also In some cases tax has been deducted even on payments, besides deduction of Tax on invoices booked (for example by Radikal Foods Ltd) This resulted in excess depiction of Income accruing to the deductee/assesse in subsequent year. 10. The Ld Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) did not considering the facts that the excess depiction of amount in Form 26AS is not because of concealment but on account of deduction of tax even on Payments made besides few delayed deduction of Tax by the deductor. The assesse had booked such incomes in previous yearThe Net difference is to the tune of Rs.7,01,227/- which has been confirmed by him as addition to income by AO. 11. Similarly some incomes had been booked by the assesse in the Financial Year 2011-12 but TDS had NOT been affected on the same in the Financial Year 2011-12 by the customers one of the example is of M/S RADIKAL FOODS LTD (Page no.-60-60) 12. The mismatch as enumerated above is in case of 4 customers and in some cases the assesse had booked revenue in the current year but the deductors have affected TDS in next year 13. The study of account of M/s UNIPATCH RUBBER LTD, M/S RADIKAL FOODS LTD. (earlier RADIKAL OVERSEAS) & UNITECH LTD clearly demonstrates that there is no concealment in income and the contention of the assessee are true and correct M/s UNIPATCH RUBBER LTD (Page no.-56-57)
Sl. Particulars Amount No. 1. Amount Booked in Customer Ledger in FY2010-11 As 830680/- per Books Payment made in FY 2010-11 As per books 349058/- 2. 3. Amount disclosed by Customer in 26AS in FY 2010-11 349058/- EQUIVALENT TO PAYMENTS MADE (Page no. 48-48 of 26AS) & (Page no56-56 of Copy of Ledger) 3
4. Short Amount Booked By Customer In FY 2010-2011 481622/- In 26AS and Booked In 26AS In FY 2011-12 Copy of Invoice may be referred (Page 67-67) 948333/- 5. Amount Booked in Customer Account in FY 2011-12 As per books Reimbursement Booked in FY 2011-12 As per books 21600/- 6. Payment made in FY 2011-12 As per books 873427/- 7. 805939/- 8. Tax deducted on Payments during FY 2011-12 of (Page no. 54-54 of 26AS) & (Page no. 56-57 of Copy of Ledger) Amount disclosed by Customer in 26AS in FY 2011-12 1480804/- 9. 1159204/- 10. Net billing reported by customer in 26AS for FY 2011-12 Net Excess Booked By Assessee 295068/- 11. Further, in case of this customer the assesse raised its first bill during the FY 2011-2012, for Reimbursement on 23/05/2011 for 21600/- and for the services on 21/07/2011 whereas the customer had booked entries in 26AS even in April 2011 which represent bills pertaining to Financial Year 2010-11 thereby increasing the revenue of the assesse for Financial Year 2011-12 of the assesse(Page no. 54-54 of 26AS) & (Page no. 56-56 of Copy of Ledger) The above customer has booked TDS in 26AS on the basis of payments and not on the basis of Bills upto 24/12/2011 the same is evident from the ledger account of the customer entry. After this the customer started booking entries in 26AS on the basis of Bills also. The customer did not make any payment during the FY 2011-12 after 24/12/2011 as per 26AS where after it recorded entries in 26AS on the basis of the bills(Page no. 54-54 of 26AS) & (Page no. 57-57 of Copy of Ledger) RADIKAL FOODS LTD./RADIKAL OVERSEAS (Page no. 58-60) Sl. Particulars Amount No. 2562020/- 1. Amount Booked in Customer Account in FY2010-11 As per books Amount disclosed by customer in 26AS in FY 2010-11 2345972/- 2. 216048/- 3. Difference in 26AS in FY 2010-2011 because of non deduction of TDS on Reimbursements 4
2189735/- 4. Amount Booked in Customer Account in FY 2011-12 As per books Reimbursement Booked in FY 2011-12 As per books 5. 44000/- Payment made in FY 2011-12 As per books 2296915/- 6. Amount disclosed by customer in 26AS in FY 2011-12 2719135/- 7. 8. TDS deducted on the basis of Payment of (Page no. 550000/- 53-53 of 26AS) & (Page no. 59-60 of Copy of Ledger) 2125135/- 9. Net billing disclosed by customer in 26AS for FY 2011- 12 NET EXCESS BOOKED BY ASSESSEE IN FY 2011- 12 64600/- 10.
UNITECH LTD. (Page no61-62)
Sl. Particulars Amount No.
Amount Booked in Customer Account in FY 2010-11 As 1632443/- per books Payment made in FY 2010-11 As per books 1264775/- 2. Amount disclosed by customer in 26AS in FY 2010- 11 1423165/- 3.
4. Short Booked by customer in FY 2010-2011 (Page no48- 48 of 26AS) & (Page no. 61-62 of Copy of Ledger) Copy 209278/- Of Invoice may be referred (Page no 68-68) 5. Amount Booked in Customer Account in FY 2011-12 As 0/- per books. Reimbursement Booked in FY 2011-12 As per books 0/- 6. Payment made in FY 2011-12 As per books 367668/- 7.
Amount disclosed by customer in 26AS in FY 2011- 12 (on the bill dated 24/03/2011 for Rs208836/) (Page no. 208835/- 54 of 26AS) This was booked by assessee in FY 2010-11) (Page no. 62 of Copy of Ledger) Payment made in FY 2011-12 As per books NIL 9.
To summarize the Revenue shifted to next year in 26AS due to difference in booking pattern is:
Sl. No. Customer Amount 1. Unipatch Rubber Ltd. 481622/- 2. Radikal Foods Ltd. 64600/-
Unitech Ltd. 209278/- 755500/- TOTAL :
The tables and the explanation given above clearly proves that the contention of the assesse is correct and assesse had declared what it has billed and has not earned any undisclosed income as envisaged by the IT Department. However, the companies were not co-operating hence confirmation could not be provided From above discussion it is clear that there is no concealment on the part of assesse and it is because of difference in booking pattern of TDS there is difference in Income declared in 26AS and Sales/Revenue declared in Return of Income In the end justice is prayed by deleting of the balance addition of Rs. 8,59,423/- to Business Income i.e. Rs. 158,196/- on account of Reimbursement of Travelling Considered as Income and Rs. 7,01,227/- because of difference in revenue as per 26AS & Revenue as per Profit & Loss Account.”
In view of the written submissions we are of the view that this matter has to be examined by the Assessing Officer with reference to the copies of the returns filed by the assessee for the earlier years and also to examine the copies of ledger accounts of various parties to substantiate the contentions of the assessee. In the circumstances we restore this appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer who shall examine the contentions of the assessee and the assessee is at liberty to file necessary evidences before the Assessing Officer to substantiate its claim. The Assessing Officer shall provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
The ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on : 13/04/2023.