ASST CIT 22(3), MUMBAI V. SHARAD TONDON, MUMBAI

ITA 1801/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5293 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHAUDHARY ARUN KUMAR SINGHDR
• Assessee Lawyers: S M BANSAL
• Keywords: Business income; Salary income; Additional evidence; TDS
• Section: 142(1); 143(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES G, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1801/MUM/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ACIT-22(3), ROOM NO.305, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, PAREL, MUMBAI-400012 / VS. SHRI SHARAD TANDON, 802, GOLDEN SQUARE, CST ROAD, KALINE, SANTACRUZ(E), MUMBAI-400098 / REVENUE !'# / ASSESSEE P.A. NO . AANFS4189B / REVENUE BY CHAUDHARY ARUN KUMAR SINGH-DR !'# / ASSESSEE BY SHRI S. M. BANSAL $ %&#' / DATE OF HEARING 17/10/2018 &#' / DATE OF ORDER: 22/10/2018 / O R D E R THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DAT ED 08/12/2016 OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, MU MBAI, DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.83,35,824/- WITHOUT CON SIDERING THE FACTUAL MATRIX AND FURTHER WITHOUT PROVIDING OP PORTUNITY TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE FACTS, A S REQUIRED ITA NO.1801/MUM/2017 SHRI SHARAD TANDON 2 UNDER RULE-46A OF THE I.T. RULES. DURING HEARING, T HE LD. DR, CHUDHARY ARUN KUMAR SINGH, DEFENDED THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BY CONTENDING THA T WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), ADMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE A ND EVEN NO REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FROM THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, IT IS VIOLATION OF RULE-46A OF THE I.T. RULES . ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI S. M. BANDI, DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY EXPLAINING THAT NO ADDITION EVIDENCE WAS FILED B EFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL). 2.1. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS , IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM SALARY, H OUSE PROPERTY AND FROM OTHER SOURCES, DECLARED TOTAL INC OME OF RS.69,00,340/- IN HIS RETURN FILED ON 25/03/2013, W HICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT). THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY, THEREFORE, NOTICES UNDER SEC TION 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS AND FILED THE DET AILS CALLED FOR IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. ON PERUSAL OF S UCH DETAILS, ITA NO.1801/MUM/2017 SHRI SHARAD TANDON 3 THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT AS PER 26AS, T HERE WAS UNDISCLOSED TDS OF RS.8,43,590/- AND FURTHER THE AS SESSEE DID NOT OFFER ANY BUSINESS INCOME. THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE CORRESPONDING INCOME FOR THE SAID TDS HAVE ALREADY BEEN OFFERED BY THE COMPANY IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND ALSO THE DEDUCTED TDS HAS ALREADY BEEN CLAIMED BY THE COMPAN Y. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED VIDE REPLY DATED 26/03/2015, WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOWEVE R, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE CORRESPONDING INCOM E OF RS.83,35,824/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ON APP EAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), THE FACTUAL MATRIX WAS CONSIDERED AND DELETED THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING THAT THE CORRESPONDING INCOME FOR THE SAID TDS HAS ALREADY B EEN OFFERED BY M/S TANDON URBAN SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. IN ITS RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AND THE TDS, SO DEDUCTED HAS ALREADY BEEN CLAIMED BY THE COMPANY. T HE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS T RIBUNAL. WE HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD AND FIND THAT THE FACTUA L FINDING RECORDED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SUBSTANTIATED WIT H FACTS ITA NO.1801/MUM/2017 SHRI SHARAD TANDON 4 AND THE DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OF FICER WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEAL), THUS, THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEAL) IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THE NECESSARY DETAILS WERE DULY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF, THUS, TAXING THE SAME AGAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION I.E. TAXING THE SAME INCOME TWICE, CONSEQUENTLY, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CONCLUSION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL), RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON17/10/2018. SD/- SD/- ( RAMIT KOCHAR ) (JOGINDER SINGH) ' # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $%& /VICE PRESIDENT $ % MUMBAI; ) DATED : 22/10/2018 F{X~{T? P.S / * ITA NO.1801/MUM/2017 SHRI SHARAD TANDON 5 '()*+ ,+-) / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. +,- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./,- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 00 $ 1# ( + ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. 00 $ 1# / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 45.# , 0+'+ 6 , $ % / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 7!8% / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, $/ (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , $ % / ITAT, MUMBAI