ITAT Bangalore Judgments — May 2024

The assessee appealed to the CIT(Appeals), who issued notices but received no reply, leading to an ex-parte dismissal. The assessee then appealed to the ITAT, arguing that the CIT(A) did not consider submissions made on 26.12.2023, and the order was passed on 07.02.2024, after the submissions were filed. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was passed after the due date for compliance and without considering the assessee's submissions.

The Tribunal noted that the assessee made cash deposits during the demonetisation period and was unable to explain them before the AO. While the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to non-compliance, the Tribunal, considering the submissions and in the interest of justice, decided to remit the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(Appeals) dismissed the appeal without adjudicating on the merits due to the assessee's non-response to notices. Considering the facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to remit the appeal back to the CIT(Appeals) for fresh consideration after providing the assessee an opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the propagation of Vedic thoughts and philosophy is concerned with lifestyle and is charitable in nature, not religious. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to approval under Section 80G.

The Tribunal decided on the issues as follows: Regarding Ground No. 2 (Assumption of jurisdiction under section 147/148), the assessee did not press these grounds, and they were dismissed as not pressed. Regarding Grounds No. 3 and 3.4 (Taxability of Voice Interconnect services as Royalty), the Tribunal held that payments received by the assessee towards interconnectivity utility charges from Indian customers/end-users cannot be considered as Royalty to be brought to tax in India under section 9(1)(vi) of the Act and also as per the India-Austria DTAA. These payments were considered business profits taxable in the assessee's country of residence, not in India, as no permanent establishment was made out. The Tribunal allowed these grounds in favor of the assessee. Regarding Grounds No. 4 to 4.4 (Taxability of Roaming Services and VPN as Royalty), the Tribunal, following its own earlier decisions in similar cases and the reasoning applied to Voice Interconnect services, held that payments received for interconnectivity utility charges and roaming charges (for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13, and by extension for AY 2010-11) cannot be considered as Royalty. These were also held to be business profits not taxable in India. The Tribunal allowed these grounds in favor of the assessee. Ground No. 1 (General), and Grounds No. 5 to 5.2 (Interest under section 234A) and 6 to 6.2 (Penalty under section 271(1)(c)) were not adjudicated as they did not require specific adjudication based on the Tribunal's findings on other grounds or were considered general. The operative direction was to allow grounds 3 and 4 in favor of the assessee, leading to a partial allowance of the appeal.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings (Ground No. 2) were not pressed by the Assessee and were therefore dismissed as not pressed. Regarding Ground No. 3, concerning the taxability of sales commission, the Tribunal respectfully followed its own prior decisions in the Assessee's own case for AY 2012-13 (IT(IT)A No.723/Bang/2022) and in the case of ASPL (payer) for AY 2012-13 to AY 2015-16 (ITA Nos.943 to 946/Bang/2023). In these earlier decisions, the Tribunal had held that the sales and marketing services rendered by the Assessee did not fall within the ambit of FTS as defined under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act or Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA. The Tribunal emphasized that the services did not satisfy the 'make available' test, as they did not impart technical knowledge, experience, or skill to the recipient for their enduring benefit or independent future use. The Tribunal also noted that since the payer (ASPL) was held not liable for TDS on these commission payments, the same finding applied to the recipient (Assessee). Consequently, the Tribunal allowed Ground No. 3 in favour of the Assessee, holding that sales commission is not taxable in India. The Tribunal did not decide on the issue of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C (Ground No. 6) as the primary issue of taxability of sales commission was decided in favour of the Assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings (Ground No. 2) were not pressed by the Assessee and were therefore dismissed as not pressed. Regarding Ground No. 3, concerning the taxability of sales commission, the Tribunal respectfully followed its own prior decisions in the Assessee's own case for AY 2012-13 (IT(IT)A No.723/Bang/2022) and in the case of ASPL (payer) for AY 2012-13 to AY 2015-16 (ITA Nos.943 to 946/Bang/2023). In these earlier decisions, the Tribunal had held that the sales and marketing services rendered by the Assessee did not fall within the ambit of FTS as defined under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act or Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA. The Tribunal emphasized that the services did not satisfy the 'make available' test, as they did not impart technical knowledge, experience, or skill to the recipient for their enduring benefit or independent future use. The Tribunal also noted that since the payer (ASPL) was held not liable for TDS on these commission payments, the same finding applied to the recipient (Assessee). Consequently, the Tribunal allowed Ground No. 3 in favour of the Assessee, holding that sales commission is not taxable in India. The Tribunal did not decide on the issue of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C (Ground No. 6) as the primary issue of taxability of sales commission was decided in favour of the Assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings (Ground No. 2) were not pressed by the Assessee and were therefore dismissed as not pressed. Regarding Ground No. 3, concerning the taxability of sales commission, the Tribunal respectfully followed its own prior decisions in the Assessee's own case for AY 2012-13 (IT(IT)A No.723/Bang/2022) and in the case of ASPL (payer) for AY 2012-13 to AY 2015-16 (ITA Nos.943 to 946/Bang/2023). In these earlier decisions, the Tribunal had held that the sales and marketing services rendered by the Assessee did not fall within the ambit of FTS as defined under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act or Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA. The Tribunal emphasized that the services did not satisfy the 'make available' test, as they did not impart technical knowledge, experience, or skill to the recipient for their enduring benefit or independent future use. The Tribunal also noted that since the payer (ASPL) was held not liable for TDS on these commission payments, the same finding applied to the recipient (Assessee). Consequently, the Tribunal allowed Ground No. 3 in favour of the Assessee, holding that sales commission is not taxable in India. The Tribunal did not decide on the issue of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C (Ground No. 6) as the primary issue of taxability of sales commission was decided in favour of the Assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings (Ground No. 2) were not pressed by the Assessee and were therefore dismissed as not pressed. Regarding Ground No. 3, concerning the taxability of sales commission, the Tribunal respectfully followed its own prior decisions in the Assessee's own case for AY 2012-13 (IT(IT)A No.723/Bang/2022) and in the case of ASPL (payer) for AY 2012-13 to AY 2015-16 (ITA Nos.943 to 946/Bang/2023). In these earlier decisions, the Tribunal had held that the sales and marketing services rendered by the Assessee did not fall within the ambit of FTS as defined under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act or Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA. The Tribunal emphasized that the services did not satisfy the 'make available' test, as they did not impart technical knowledge, experience, or skill to the recipient for their enduring benefit or independent future use. The Tribunal also noted that since the payer (ASPL) was held not liable for TDS on these commission payments, the same finding applied to the recipient (Assessee). Consequently, the Tribunal allowed Ground No. 3 in favour of the Assessee, holding that sales commission is not taxable in India. The Tribunal did not decide on the issue of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C (Ground No. 6) as the primary issue of taxability of sales commission was decided in favour of the Assessee.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings (Ground No. 2) were not pressed by the Assessee and were therefore dismissed as not pressed. Regarding Ground No. 3, concerning the taxability of sales commission, the Tribunal respectfully followed its own prior decisions in the Assessee's own case for AY 2012-13 (IT(IT)A No.723/Bang/2022) and in the case of ASPL (payer) for AY 2012-13 to AY 2015-16 (ITA Nos.943 to 946/Bang/2023). In these earlier decisions, the Tribunal had held that the sales and marketing services rendered by the Assessee did not fall within the ambit of FTS as defined under Section 9(1)(vii) of the Act or Article 12 of the India-USA DTAA. The Tribunal emphasized that the services did not satisfy the 'make available' test, as they did not impart technical knowledge, experience, or skill to the recipient for their enduring benefit or independent future use. The Tribunal also noted that since the payer (ASPL) was held not liable for TDS on these commission payments, the same finding applied to the recipient (Assessee). Consequently, the Tribunal allowed Ground No. 3 in favour of the Assessee, holding that sales commission is not taxable in India. The Tribunal did not decide on the issue of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234C (Ground No. 6) as the primary issue of taxability of sales commission was decided in favour of the Assessee.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals were filed against orders sustaining penalties under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The judgment indicates that the appeals were disposed of based on a common issue. The Tribunal observed that the assessee had voluntarily offered the reimbursement of salary costs for seconded employees to tax as Fees for Technical Services (FTS) either in the return of income or by way of a revised computation. Similarly, IBM Australia Limited offered AP IT service receipts and miscellaneous support service receipts. The Tribunal found that the assessee had made a full and true disclosure of income and had not concealed any particulars. Therefore, the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A were deleted. The appeals were allowed.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals involved common issues of taxability of payments made by IBM India to its foreign group entities for services rendered, which were treated as royalty or fees for technical services by the revenue. The Tribunal observed that the core of the dispute was whether these payments were taxable in India under the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the respective DTAAs. The Tribunal decided to consolidate and hear these appeals together due to the commonality of issues. The specific findings on each appeal would depend on the detailed analysis of the nature of services, the agreements, and the applicability of the relevant DTAA provisions and the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision would likely hinge on whether the services rendered constituted royalty or FTS, and if so, whether the foreign entities had a permanent establishment in India to which such income could be attributed. The operative directions would be to either uphold the revenue's assessment, delete the additions, or remand the matter for fresh consideration based on the Tribunal's findings.

The Tribunal held that the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A were not sustainable. The primary reasoning was that the taxability of secondment reimbursements was a debatable issue, and in such circumstances, the assessees had a reasonable cause for not filing their original returns under Section 139(1) and for offering the income to tax only upon initiation of reassessment proceedings. The Tribunal found that the assessees had disclosed the relevant receipts in Form 3CEB, indicating that material facts were not suppressed. The Tribunal also noted the existence of contradictory judicial pronouncements on the issue, which, as per the Supreme Court's decision in *Singapore Airlines Ltd.*, can constitute a reasonable cause. The Tribunal distinguished the ruling in *MAK Data P. Ltd.*, stating it was in a different context where no bonafide explanations were provided. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in distinguishing the precedents relied upon by the assessees, particularly *Abbey Business Service (India) Private Limited*, as the facts were similar, and the ITAT's Special Bench referral order in IBM India's own case had acknowledged this similarity. Therefore, the penalties were deleted. The Tribunal did not expressly leave any issue undecided.

The Tribunal held that the reimbursement of salary costs for seconded employees did not constitute 'fees for technical services' (FTS) and was not liable for tax deduction at source under Section 195 of the Act. The Tribunal reasoned that the secondment agreements were independent contracts of service, and the seconded employees functioned under the control and supervision of the assessee, making the assessee their employer. The Tribunal distinguished the case of M/s Centrica India Offshore Pvt. Ltd. by noting that the issue of permanent establishment was not involved in the present appeals. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessees had acted bonafide, disclosed the secondment receipts, and there was a reasonable cause for not offering them for taxation in the original return due to contradictory judicial decisions on the issue. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A of the Act in all the cases. The appeals were allowed, and the penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reimbursement of salary costs for seconded employees did not constitute 'fees for technical services' and the assessee was not obligated to deduct tax at source. The Tribunal also noted the bonafide belief of the assessees due to contradictory decisions on the issue.

The Tribunal held that preference shares, even with a redemption premium, cannot be treated as a debt instrument by revenue authorities. The payment of premium is contingent on profits and not a right, thus not taxable as accrued income.

The Tribunal held that the reimbursement of salary costs for seconded employees did not constitute 'fees for technical services' (FTS) and was not liable for tax deduction at source under Section 195 of the Act. The Tribunal reasoned that the secondment agreements were independent contracts of service, and the seconded employees functioned under the control and supervision of the assessee, making the assessee their employer. The Tribunal distinguished the case of M/s Centrica India Offshore Pvt. Ltd. by noting that the issue of permanent establishment was not involved in the present appeals. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessees had acted bonafide, disclosed the secondment receipts, and there was a reasonable cause for not offering them for taxation in the original return due to contradictory judicial decisions on the issue. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A of the Act in all the cases. The appeals were allowed, and the penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reimbursement of salary costs for seconded employees did not constitute 'fees for technical services' (FTS) and was not liable for tax deduction at source under Section 195 of the Act. The Tribunal reasoned that the secondment agreements were independent contracts of service, and the seconded employees functioned under the control and supervision of the assessee, making the assessee their employer. The Tribunal distinguished the case of M/s Centrica India Offshore Pvt. Ltd. by noting that the issue of permanent establishment was not involved in the present appeals. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessees had acted bonafide, disclosed the secondment receipts, and there was a reasonable cause for not offering them for taxation in the original return due to contradictory judicial decisions on the issue. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A of the Act in all the cases. The appeals were allowed, and the penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reimbursement of salary costs for seconded employees did not constitute 'fees for technical services' (FTS) and was not liable for tax deduction at source under Section 195 of the Act. The Tribunal reasoned that the secondment agreements were independent contracts of service, and the seconded employees functioned under the control and supervision of the assessee, making the assessee their employer. The Tribunal distinguished the case of M/s Centrica India Offshore Pvt. Ltd. by noting that the issue of permanent establishment was not involved in the present appeals. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessees had acted bonafide, disclosed the secondment receipts, and there was a reasonable cause for not offering them for taxation in the original return due to contradictory judicial decisions on the issue. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A of the Act in all the cases. The appeals were allowed, and the penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reimbursement of salary costs for seconded employees did not constitute 'fees for technical services' (FTS) and was not liable for tax deduction at source under Section 195 of the Act. The Tribunal reasoned that the secondment agreements were independent contracts of service, and the seconded employees functioned under the control and supervision of the assessee, making the assessee their employer. The Tribunal distinguished the case of M/s Centrica India Offshore Pvt. Ltd. by noting that the issue of permanent establishment was not involved in the present appeals. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessees had acted bonafide, disclosed the secondment receipts, and there was a reasonable cause for not offering them for taxation in the original return due to contradictory judicial decisions on the issue. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A of the Act in all the cases. The appeals were allowed, and the penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reimbursement of salary costs for seconded employees did not constitute 'fees for technical services' (FTS) and was not liable for tax deduction at source under Section 195 of the Act. The Tribunal reasoned that the secondment agreements were independent contracts of service, and the seconded employees functioned under the control and supervision of the assessee, making the assessee their employer. The Tribunal distinguished the case of M/s Centrica India Offshore Pvt. Ltd. by noting that the issue of permanent establishment was not involved in the present appeals. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessees had acted bonafide, disclosed the secondment receipts, and there was a reasonable cause for not offering them for taxation in the original return due to contradictory judicial decisions on the issue. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A of the Act in all the cases. The appeals were allowed, and the penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reimbursement of salary costs for seconded employees did not constitute 'fees for technical services' (FTS) and was not liable for tax deduction at source under Section 195 of the Act. The Tribunal reasoned that the secondment agreements were independent contracts of service, and the seconded employees functioned under the control and supervision of the assessee, making the assessee their employer. The Tribunal distinguished the case of M/s Centrica India Offshore Pvt. Ltd. by noting that the issue of permanent establishment was not involved in the present appeals. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessees had acted bonafide, disclosed the secondment receipts, and there was a reasonable cause for not offering them for taxation in the original return due to contradictory judicial decisions on the issue. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A of the Act in all the cases. The appeals were allowed, and the penalties were deleted.

The Tribunal held that the reimbursement of salary costs for seconded employees did not constitute 'fees for technical services' (FTS) and was not liable for tax deduction at source under Section 195 of the Act. The Tribunal reasoned that the secondment agreements were independent contracts of service, and the seconded employees functioned under the control and supervision of the assessee, making the assessee their employer. The Tribunal distinguished the case of M/s Centrica India Offshore Pvt. Ltd. by noting that the issue of permanent establishment was not involved in the present appeals. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the assessees had acted bonafide, disclosed the secondment receipts, and there was a reasonable cause for not offering them for taxation in the original return due to contradictory judicial decisions on the issue. Consequently, the Tribunal deleted the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) and Section 270A of the Act in all the cases. The appeals were allowed, and the penalties were deleted.

The assessee sought to withdraw the appeal. The Departmental Representative had no objection to the withdrawal. The Tribunal considered the request for withdrawal.

The Tribunal held that preference shares, even with a redemption premium, cannot be treated as a debt instrument by revenue authorities. The payment of premium is contingent on profits and not a right, thus not taxable as accrued income.

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not settled the dispute under the VSV Act. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the NFAC to decide the appeal on its merits.

The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) are not sustainable if the additions made in the assessment are debatable or where two views are possible. The Tribunal also considered the aspect of 'reasonable cause' in relation to penalties.

The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) are not sustainable if the additions made are on debatable issues or where two views are possible. The assessee's claim that reimbursements were not taxable was considered a debatable issue.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting judicial precedents and in holding that the assessee's conduct was not bonafide. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) incorrectly distinguished the facts of the present case from relied upon judgments.

The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) are not sustainable if the assessment itself is debatable or if there are two possible views on the issue. Merely because a claim made by the assessee was not accepted by the revenue does not automatically attract penalty.

The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) are not sustainable when the additions are based on debatable issues or where two views are possible. The Tribunal also considered the fact that IBM India had deducted TDS on the salaries of seconded employees.

The Tribunal held that the reimbursement of salary costs for seconded employees did not constitute 'fees for technical services' and the assessee was not obligated to deduct tax at source. The Tribunal also noted the bonafide belief of the assessees due to contradictory decisions on the issue.

The Tribunal held that penalties cannot be imposed in cases where adjustments are made on debatable issues or where two views are possible. The ITAT cancelled the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.

The Tribunal considered whether the voluntary offer of receipts to tax, even if to avoid litigation, precludes the levy of penalty. It examined the bonafide belief of the assessees and the applicability of judicial precedents.

The Tribunal held that penalties cannot be imposed in cases where the issue is debatable or where two different views are possible. Merely because an assessee's claim is not accepted by the Assessing Officer does not automatically attract penalty.

The Tribunal held that the reimbursement of salary costs for seconded employees did not constitute 'fees for technical services' and the assessee was not obligated to deduct tax at source. The Tribunal also noted the bonafide belief of the assessees due to contradictory decisions on the issue.

The Tribunal held that penalties under Section 271(1)(c) are not sustainable if the additions made were on debatable issues or where two views are possible. The assessee's reliance on judicial precedents supporting this view was noted.

The Tribunal held that the reimbursement of salary costs for seconded employees did not constitute 'fees for technical services' and that the assessees acted bonafide in their belief regarding taxability. Consequently, the levy of penalty was not justified.

The Tribunal held that the Rs. 60 lakhs loan, repaid within 8 days, did not constitute a loan or advance and thus was not taxable as deemed dividend. Regarding the Rs. 1 crore loan, the Tribunal noted that interest was paid, indicating a commercial transaction. Since the AO had not examined all relevant details concerning this commercial transaction, the issue was set aside and remanded to the AO for fresh examination.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's case was below the taxable limit and that the addition of Rs. 10 lakhs made by the AO was the subject matter of appeal. Therefore, there was no question of payment of advance tax under Section 249(4)(b) of the Act. The NFAC was not justified in dismissing the appeal on the ground of non-payment of admitted tax.

The Tribunal held that once the AO accepted agricultural income in the computation of tax, it could not be treated as unexplained investment. Therefore, the income should be considered agricultural income and taxed accordingly.

The Tribunal found that there was a reasonable cause for the assessee's non-participation in the proceedings before the Addl. CIT(A), as notices were sent to an incorrect email address which was not communicated to the assessee. The AO had passed an ex-parte order. The Tribunal condoned the delay and decided to remit the issue of the addition of Rs. 7,69,800/- back to the AO for reconsideration.

The Tribunal noted that the CPC disallowed delayed deposit of PF/ESI based on the audit report and rejected the assessee's Section 154 application. The CIT(A) relied on the Apex Court judgment in Checkmate Services P. Ltd. The Tribunal also noted that the case laws cited by both sides regarding M/s Bulk Liquid Solution P. Ltd. were similar to the assessee's facts.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) did not properly consider the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. regarding associate members. The matter was restored to the AO for proportionate deduction. Regarding interest income, the Tribunal directed the AO to examine eligibility for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) and also allowed deduction for cost of funds under section 57(iii) for income taxed under 'other sources'.

The Tribunal condoned the 318-day delay in filing the appeals before it, citing the bonafide reasons provided by the assessee and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji. The Tribunal also condoned the 27-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18, finding sufficient reason. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without deciding the issue.

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the revenue's appeal. However, based on CBDT Circular No.17 of 2019, which sets a monetary limit for appeals, the Tribunal found the tax effect in this case to be less than Rs. 50 lakhs. Therefore, the revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) did not properly consider the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. regarding associate members. The matter was restored to the AO for proportionate deduction. Regarding interest income, the Tribunal directed the AO to examine eligibility for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) and also allowed deduction for cost of funds under section 57(iii) for income taxed under 'other sources'.

The Tribunal held that the AO and CIT(A) did not properly consider the Supreme Court judgment in Mavilayi Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. regarding associate members. The matter was restored to the AO for proportionate deduction. Regarding interest income, the Tribunal directed the AO to examine eligibility for deduction under section 80P(2)(d) and also allowed deduction for cost of funds under section 57(iii) for income taxed under 'other sources'.

The Tribunal condoned the 318-day delay in filing the appeals before it, citing the bonafide reasons provided by the assessee and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji. The Tribunal also condoned the 27-day delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) for AY 2017-18, finding sufficient reason. For AY 2018-19, the Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte without deciding the issue.

The Tribunal condoned the delay after noting the genuine cause and the respondent's lack of objection. The Tribunal found that the assessee had a strong case and the issue should not be dismissed due to technical lapses. The assessee provided new evidence, including rectified Form 26AS and company confirmations, which were not available before the lower authorities.