Shri Suresh Ram, Singrauli V. Income Tax Officer Ward-2,Rewa, Rewa

ITA 14/JAB/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2263 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V B SARGAR
• Keywords: Salary income; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 14/JAB/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI SURESH RAM, NH-III, B-65, VINDHYA NAGAR, SINGRAULI, MP-486 885 PAN : AESPR 3208 P VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, REWA (MP) / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SAPAN USRETHE, ADV. REVENUE BY : SHRI V.B. SARGAR, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 14/03/2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16/03/2018 / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IS DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-1, JABALPUR DATED 11.12.2017 VIDE APPEAL NO.J/CIT/A-2/JBP/ITO/W-2/REWA/265/2013-14, ARISING OUT OF ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT), FRAMED ON 28.11.2013 BY THE ITO-2, REWA. 2. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PASSI NG ORDER EX PARTE EVEN THOUGH CASE WAS FIXED FOR FIRST TIME AND NO NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AS HE WAS OUT OF STATION FOR THE OPERATION O F HIS SON. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) CON FIRMED THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MECHANICALLY, WITHOUT APPRECIA TING THAT HE NEVER AGREED FOR ADDITION AS RETURN WAS TILED AS PER FORM 16 I SSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND CORRECT SALARY WAS FEEDED IN THE FORM 16. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) CONF IRMED THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MECHANICALLY, WITHOUT APPRECIA TING THAT BECAUSE OF WRONG FEEDING OF GROSS SALARY IN FORM 26 AS ADDITION WAS MADE. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) CON FIRMED THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MECHANICALLY, WITHOUT APPRECIA TING THAT LATER ON THE ITA NO. 14/JAB/2018 SHRI SURESH RAM VS. ITO AY : 2011-12 2 DEPARTMENT HAS RECTIFIED THE MISTAKE AND CORRECT SALAR Y WAS FEEDED IN FORM 26AS AND THEREFORE NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. 5. THE LEARNED AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT RECTIFYING T HE MISTAKE EVEN THOUGH GRIEVANCE PETITION WAS FILED AND IT WAS REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) EVEN THOUGH AS PER 26AS AO CAN RECTIFIED THE MISTAKE AS IT IS APPARENT FROM RECORD. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS, AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RECORD ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN EMPLOYEE OF NTPC LIMITED. HE DECLARED INCOME OF RS.9,72,800/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 17.08.2011, ON WHICH TDS HAS BEEN MADE AT RS.1,50,215/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER GOING THROUGH FORM NO.26AS, OBSERVED THAT THE INCOME HAS BEEN REFLECTED AT RS.14,44,741/- AND ACCORDINGLY ASSESSED THE INCOME AT RS.14,44,741/-. 4. APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS DISMISSED EX-PARTE BY LEARNED CIT(A). AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THER E WAS A MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE NTPC LIMITED IN SHOWING THE CORREC T FIGURE OF SALARY WHICH HAS BEEN NOW RECTIFIED BY THE NTPC LIMITED AND THE SALARY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IS THE CORRECT FIGURE OF SALARY. HE, THEREFORE, URGED THAT THE AN OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE P ROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO GO BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THE NECE SSARY DOCUMENTS INCLUDING THE CORRECT FORM 16 AS WELL AS CERTIFICATE IS SUED BY THE NTPC LIMITED WHICH SHOWS THE GROSS SALARY OF RS.10,94,503/- AS AGAIN ST RS.14,44,741/- ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LEARNED D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RAISED NO OBJECTION. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE CROPPED UP IN THIS APPEAL IS ON ACCOUNT OF MISMATCH OF SALARY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS AGAINST THE SALARY REFLECTED IN FORM NO.26AS. AS A RESULT OF WH ICH THE LEARNED ITA NO. 14/JAB/2018 SHRI SURESH RAM VS. ITO AY : 2011-12 3 ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE INCOME AT RS.14,44,741/-; WH EREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE SALARY INCOME AT RS.9,72,800/-. FROM PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT NTPC LIMITED HAS ISSUED FORM NO. 16 SHOWING GROSS SALARY OF RA.10,72,803/- AND, AFTER PROVIDING DEDUCTION UNDER C HAPTER VI-A, HAS CALCULATED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.9,72,800/-, WHICH IS THE SAME FIGURE AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. HOWE VER, LOOKING TO THE FACTS THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE FIND IT JUSTIFIED TO SET ASIDE ALL THE ISSUES RAISED I N THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO ADJUDICATION SO AS TO EXAMINE THESE DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING FORM NO.16 ISSUED BY THE NTPC LI MITED AND CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE NTPC WHICH SUPPORTS THE SAL ARY INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSE SSEE AND THEREAFTER ASSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH TH E PROVISIONS OF LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 16 TH MARCH, 2018 AT JABALPUR. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JABALPUR; DATED 16/03/ 2018 *BIT / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, JABALPUR 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, JABALPUR