Vasandha Kokila S, CHENNAI V. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 22(1), CHENNAI

ITA 1128/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4076 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAYA PRABAJCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS MUTHU ABIRAMI
• Keywords: TDS; FORM 26AS

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI , ! ' # $% BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1128/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 SMT.VASANTHA KOKILA , 7A,VARADHARAJAN STREET, SARASWATHY COLONY HASTHINAPURAM, CHENNAI-64. VS. THE ACIT, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 22(1), TAMBARAM. [PAN AEKPV 4016 M ] ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MRS.MUTHU ABIRAMI,ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : M/S.VIJAYA PRABA,JCIT D.R / DATE OF HEARING : 26 .02.20 20 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 .02.2020 $' / O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-10, CHENNAI IN ITA NO.151/16-17/C.I.T(A)-10, DATED 30.01.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. ITA NO.1128/CHNY/2018 :- 2 -: 2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WE FIND THAT ONLY EFFECTIVE ISSUE THAT IS TO BE DEC IDED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUST IFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VAL UE OF SERVICES RENDERED AS REFLECTED IN FORM NO.26AS VIS--VIS BOO KS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ASSESSE E IS THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S.BIO SCREEN TECH SERVICES, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINE SS OF MAINTENANCE OF ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTS FOR VARIOUS CLIENTS ON AN NUAL CONTRACT BASIS. THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2014- 15 ADMITTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF .47,06,560/- THE LD. A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE RECEIPTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RET URN DID NOT MATCH WITH THE TOTAL RECEIPTS REFLECTED IN FORM NO.26AS O F THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH RECO NCILIATION STATEMENT TOGETHER WITH THE CORRESPONDING TDS ELEME NT THEREON. SHE SUBMITTED RECONCILIATION STATEMENT AND STATED THAT CERTAIN AMOUNTS THAT WERE REFLECTED IN FORM 26AS OF THE ASSESSEE DO ES NOT BELONG TO THEM AND ACCORDINGLY ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE OF THOS E RECEIPTS. HENCE, ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT THE SAID SUM TOTALING TO .4,43,662/- AND INTEREST OF .37,624/- CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT LD. A.O. HOWEVER DISCARDED T HE CONTENTION OF ITA NO.1128/CHNY/2018 :- 3 -: THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOL LOWING THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND HAD CLAIMED TH E ENTIRE TDS AS REFLECTED IN FORM 26AS AND HELD THAT THE AMOUNTS RE FLECTED IN FORM 26AS ACTUALLY REPRESENT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. A.O. BROUGHT TO TAX THE SAID SUM OF .4,43,662/- TOWARDS SERVICE CHARGES RECEIVED AND .37,624/- TOWARDS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ADDITI ON MADE TOWARDS INTEREST INCOME OF .37,624/- BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). AS FAR AS THE ADDITION IN THE SUM OF .4,43,662/- TOWARDS THE DIFFERENCE IN SERVICE CHARGES RECEIVED AS PER FORM NO.26AS AND BOOKS OF A CCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE LD. A.O. 4. BEFORE US, LD. A.R. STATED THAT RECONCILIATION STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES WERE NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. BUT IN RESPONSE TO A SPECIFIC QUERY RAISED BY THE BENCH TO THE LD. A.R., WITH REGARD TO CLAIM OF ENTIRE TDS AS PER FORM 26AS , THE LD. A.R . ANSWERED IN AFFIRMATIVE. THE LAW IS VERY WELL SETTLED THAT THE CLAIM OF TDS CREDIT SHOULD BE GRANTED VIS--VIS CORRESPONDING INCOME GE TTING TAXED IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED A DETAILED RECONCILIATION STATEMENT PARTY WISE MENTIONING THE TOTAL RECEIPTS VIS--VIS THE CORRESPONDING TDS THER EON AND AS PER THE ITA NO.1128/CHNY/2018 :- 4 -: RECONCILIATION STATEMENT, WE FIND THAT THERE ARE S OME PARTIES WITH WHOM NO RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER INCOME TAX RETURN, BUT REFLECTED IN FORM 26AS OF THE ASSESSEE TOGETHER WITH TDS THEREON, WE DEEM IT FIT AND APPROPRIATE, IN THE INT EREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, TO REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD. A. O. FOR DENOVO ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY MAKING CORRE SPONDING CROSS- VERIFICATION WITH THE CONCERNED PARTIES TO ASCERTAI N THE FACT WHETHER AT ALL ANY SERVICES WERE INDEED RENDERED AND COMPLETED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO BRING TO TAX THE CORRESPONDING SERVICE CHARGE INCOME THEREON TOGETHE R WITH ITS TDS. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2020, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) '#$ /VICE PRESIDENT %& '()* ) (M. BALAGANESH) # $% / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER +, / CHENNAI -. / DATED: 28 TH FEBRUARY,2020. ITA NO.1128/CHNY/2018 :- 5 -: K S SUNDARAM .*(( /0(10 / COPY TO: ( 1 . / APPELLANT 3. ( 2(34 / CIT(A) 5. 05)( 6 / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. ( 2 / CIT 6. )7(8 / GF