R.Nagasubramanian , CHENNAI V. ITO NCW 17(5) , CHENNAI

ITA 1860/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5587 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: J SREE VIDHYA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Salary income; Non-deduction of tax

Judgement Text

, .. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , SMC A BENCH, CHENNAI . , BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1860/MDS/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) SHRI R. NAGASUBRAMANIAN, FLAT TA, 3 RD FLOOR, JAIN ANUSRI, BLOCK J, 18 TH AVENUE, 86 TH STREET, ASHOK NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 083. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD 17(5), CHENNAI 600 006. PAN: AAFPN2594K ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MS. J. SREE VIDHYA, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. SAGADEVAN, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 19.10.2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.12.2017 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)-5, CHENNAI DATED 01.06.2017 IN ITA NO.3/CIT(A)-5/2016- 17 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 PASSED U/S.250(6) R.W.S.143 (3) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HIS A PPEAL; HOWEVER THE CRUXES OF THE ISSUES ARE AS FOLLOWS:- 2 ITA NO.1860/MDS/2017 1. THE LD.CIT HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF T HE LD.AO WHO HAD MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,88,028/- DUE TO DIFFE RENCE BETWEEN FORM-16A AND FORM-26AS. 2. THE LD.CIT HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF T HE LD.AO WHO HAD MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,84,100/- UNDER THE HE AD UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL EARNING SALARY INCOME FILED HIS RETURN O F INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON 29.07.2013 DECLARING TAX ABLE INCOME OF RS.3,05,469/-. INITIALLY, THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT AND THEREAFTER THE CASE WAS T AKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.143(3 ) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 17.03.2016 WHEREIN THE LD.AO MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FORM NO.16A & FORM NO .26AS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,88,028/- AND THE OTHER ADDITION B EING RS.2,84,100/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. 4. GROUND NO.1:- ADDITION OF RS. 1,88,028/- DUE TO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FORM NO.16A & FORM NO.26AS. 3 ITA NO.1860/MDS/2017 DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT IT WAS O BSERVED BY THE LD.AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED GROSS S ALARY OF RS.4,47,696/-. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOTICED THAT AS PER FORM NO.26AS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SALARY OF RS.6,35,724/- T HE DIFFERENCE BEING RS.1,88,028/-. THEREFORE, IT WAS OPINED BY TH E LD.AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERSTATED HIS SALARY INCOME BY R S.1,88,028/- AND THEREFORE ADDED THE SAME TO HIS INCOME. 5. BEFORE THE LD.CIT, THE LD.AR HAD MADE THE FOLLOW ING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: THE EMPLOYER ISSUES SALARY CERTIFICATES IN FORM 1 6 WITH PART A & PART B TO THE EMPLOYEE WHICH IS SUBMITTED TO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN THE SAID FORM-I PART-A IS THE SUM TOTAL OF SALARY AND T DS OF THE 4 QUARTERS OF FORM 24-Q, ANNEXURE-I AND PART-B OF THE FORM 16, WHICH IS THE SUM TOTAL OF 4 QUARTERS OF FO RM 24-Q ANNEXURE-I. THE SALARY FIGURE DISCLOSED IN PART-A O F THE FORM 16 IS ONLY AN ESTIMATED FIGURE OF EACH QUARTER WHILE PART B OF FORM 16 IS THE FINAL FIGURE OF SALARY AS COMPUTED AT THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR ALONG WITH TDS AND DEDUCTIONS AND THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INSTEAD OF TA KING THE FIGURE AS PERT PART B OF THE FORM 16, HAS TAKEN THIS FIGURE WITH THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIGURES AS P ER PART A AND PART B OF THE FORM 16, THEREBY AN ADDITIONS OF RS.1,88,028/- IS MADE, THOUGH THE INCOME TAX OFFICE R HAS TAKEN THE TDS FIGURE AS PER PART-B OF FORM 16. THIS IS ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE EMPLOYER WHILE FILING UP QUARTERLY RETURN MADE A MISTAKE IN FILING UP THE FI GURE AND THIS HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY HIS LETTER, WHICH HAS BEE N OBTAINED AND FILED WITH THE INCOME TAX OFFICER. THU S THE ADDITIONS OF RS.1,88,028/- BASED ON ESTIMATED FIGUR E IN 4 ITA NO.1860/MDS/2017 PART A OF FORM 16 IS BASED ON MISTAKEN FIGURE, IS N OT AT ALL WARRANTED AND SHOULD BE DELETED. 6. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT REJECTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.AR BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: FORM 16, PART A CONTAINS ONLY THAT PORTION OF THE S ALARY ON WHICH TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED WHEREAS; PART B CONTAIN S THE TOTAL SALARY INCLUDING THE PORTION ON WHICH THE TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED. IF THERE HAS BEEN NO TAX DEDUCTION IN ONE OR MORE M ONTHS, THEN THE CORRESPONDING ENTRY WILL NOT APPEAR IN FOR M 26AS AND THE SAME WILL BE THE IMPACT IN FORM 16 PART A. HENCE WHILE FILING THE RETURN ONE SHOULD REFER TO F ORM 16 - PART B. 7. THEREAFTER, THE LD.CIT CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF TH E LD.AO AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD.AO FOR RS .1,88,028/-. 8. BEFORE US, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSEQUENTLY OBTAINED THE REVISED FORM NO.26AS AND PLACE THE SAME ON RECORD AS PAGE NO.7 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHERE IN THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF SALARY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE O F RS.4,47,696/- IS MENTIONED. IT WAS, THEREFORE, SUB MITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD.A O FOR 5 ITA NO.1860/MDS/2017 VERIFICATION AND APPROPRIATE RELIEF. THE LD.DR COUL D NOT CONTROVERT TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.AR. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS PLACED ON RECORD. ON VERIFYING THE P APER BOOK PAGE NO.7, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE FORM NO.26AS, WHEREIN THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF SALARY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.4,47,696/- IS MENTIONED. THEREF ORE AGREEING WITH THE REQUEST OF THE LD.A.R, WE HEREBY REMIT BAC K THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD.AO IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE AUTHEN TICITY OF FORM NO.26AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IF THE SAME I S FOUND TO BE GENUINE, DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,88,028/- BA SED ON THE REVISED FORM NO.26AS. 10. GROUND NO.2:- ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDITS OF RS.2,84,100/-. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT , IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD.AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED RS.2,1 0,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT ON VARIOUS DATES WHICH WAS NOT WIT HDRAWN FROM THE OTHER BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE , THE LD.AO HELD THE AMOUNT TO BE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS OF T HE ASSESSEE. 6 ITA NO.1860/MDS/2017 SIMILARLY, DISCREPANCIES WERE OBSERVED W.R.T. RS.64 ,100/- & RS.10,000/- AND THE LD.AO TREATED THE SAME ALSO AS THE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDIN GLY, THE LD.AO MADE ADDITION OF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS.2,84,10 0/- AS THE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO BY AGREEING WITH HIS VIEW. 11. AT THE OUTSET, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON THIS ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS HIS SPOUSE IS EARNING INCOME AND THEY HAVE BEEN FIL ING THEIR RETURN OF INCOME. FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE ALONE HAS DECLARED HIS SALARY INCOME OF RS.4,47,696 /-. IN THIS SITUATION, THE ACCUMULATED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE A LONG WITH HIS SPOUSE CAN BE GENUINELY PRESUMED TO BE MORE THAN RS .2,85,000/- WHICH WOULD EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSIT MADE BY THE AS SESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.2, 84,100/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT WARRANTED. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY DI RECT THE 7 ITA NO.1860/MDS/2017 LD.AO, TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.2,84,100/- MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 28 TH DECEMBER, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# /CHENNAI, $% /DATED 28 TH DECEMBER, 2017 RSR % '( )( /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. , ( )/CIT(A) 4. , /CIT 5. (-. / /DR 6. .0 /GF