MANJULA SURESH JAIN, Pune V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(2), Pune, Pune

ITA 307/PUN/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Manjula Suresh Jain, the appellant, contesting an addition of Rs.15,02,109 to her income as undisclosed income by the Income Tax Officer (ITO), Ward-8(2), Pune, for the assessment year 2012-13. The addition was based on commission income reported by Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd., which the assessee claimed did not pertain to her business. The ITO and the CIT(A) upheld the addition, leading to the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal examined the evidence, including bank records and TDS data, and concluded that the income was not earned by the assessee but by her son's business, leading to the deletion of the addition.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 124114 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 25-04-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT आयकर अपील सं. /ITA No.307/PUN/2023 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Manjula Suresh Jain, Manjusha Kunj Vikas Colony, Landewadi, Bhosari, Pune 411 039 Maharashtra PAN : ADKPJ4873B Vs. ITO, Ward-8(2), Pune Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order dated 20-01-2023 passed by the CIT(A) in National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The first ground raised by the assessee was not pressed which is hereby dismissed as ‘not pressed’. 3. Ground No.2 of the appeal is against the assumption of jurisdiction u/s.148 by the Assessing Officer (AO). The ld. AR submitted that no notice u/s.148 was issued by 30-03-2019 after which the AO ceased the jurisdiction. In this regard, it is observed Assessee by Shri V.L. Jain Revenue by Smt. Shraddha Nichal Date of hearing 26-04-2023 Date of pronouncement 26-04-2023 ITA No. 307/PUN/2023 Manjula Suresh Jain 2 from page 9 of the paper book, which is a print out of download from e-portal of the Income-tax department that notice u/s.148 was issued on 30-03-2019. Page 13 of the paper book is again the AO’s letter dated 19-07-2019 addressed to the assessee, which, on verification of record, states that notice u/s.148 was issued by the concerned AO on 30-03-2019. In view of the overwhelming position stated above, it is held that the notice u/s.148 was issued on time. This ground, therefore, fails. 4. The only ground on merits is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.15,02,109/- on account of undisclosed income. The facts apropos this issue are that the AO noticed from Form No.26AS data of a company, namely, Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd. that commission of Rs.15,02,109/- was credited to the assessee after deduction of tax at source. Form No.16A also indicated the same. On being called upon to explain the assessee’s position, it was submitted that this income did not pertain to the assessee as business of the assessee was that of retail in sarees and this telecommunication business, in respect of which commission was stated to have been paid by Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd., was not done by her. The AO got some enquiry conducted with the bank and the company. On such information, he got satisfied that the income was chargeable to ITA No. 307/PUN/2023 Manjula Suresh Jain 3 tax in the hands of the assessee. He, therefore, made the addition, which came to be affirmed in the first appeal. 5. I have heard both the sides and gone through the relevant material on record. The assessee has been taking consistent stand on this issue before the AO that the amount of commission income so stated by Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd. did not pertain to her and was never received as it was not into that business. This point of view was taken not only once or twice but thrice before the AO through various letters, which have been placed at pages 6, 18 and 44 of the paper book. Admittedly, Sistema Shyam Teleservices Ltd. indicated payment of commission through credit vouchers in favour of M/s. Poornima Communication and Electronics, though PAN details were of the assessee. The AO conducted enquiry with the concerned bank, namely, Seva Vikas Co-op. Bank Ltd. Bhosari, Pune and the bank’s reply has been reproduced at page 4 of the assessment order. This reply indicates that the assessee was proprietor of M/s. Poornima Enterprises, whose current account was closed on 29-07-2010. Another current account in the name of M/s. Poornima Communication and Electronics was also run, which was maintained by proprietor Jain Jiteshkumar Sureshkumar. That account was closed on 09-04-2014. This indicates that M/s. Poornima ITA No. 307/PUN/2023 Manjula Suresh Jain 4 Communication and Electronics was proprietorship concern of the assessee’s son, whereas the assessee was proprietor of M/s. Poornima Enterprises. The company’s letter has been reproduced at page 5 of the paper book, which categorically mentions that the commission was credited to M/s. Poornima Communication and Electronics. It is further seen from the TDS data, whose copy is available at pages 27 to 29 of the paper book, that as against the total commission income of Rs.15,02,209/- there is deduction of tax at source amounting to Rs.1,50,277/-. From the computation of income filed by the assessee, it can be seen that no credit for such TDS has been claimed by the assessee. This shows that the commission income was not earned by the assessee but by M/s. Poornima Communication and Electronics, which was a proprietorship concern run by the assessee’s son. In view of the fact the M/s. Poornima Enterprises is a separate entity distinct from M/s. Poornima Communication and Electronics and the assessee was running M/s. Poornima Enterprises whereas the company’s letter also indicated that the commission income was made due to M/s. Poornima Communication and Electronics, it becomes clear that the commission income did not pertain to the assessee. I, therefore, order to delete the addition on merits. ITA No. 307/PUN/2023 Manjula Suresh Jain 5 6. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 26 th April, 2023. Sd/- ( R.S.SYAL) VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; िदनांक Dated : 26 th April, 2023 सतीश आदेश की ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant; 2. थ / The Respondent 3. 4. 5. The Pr.CIT concerned DR, ITAT, ‘SMC’ Bench, Pune गाड फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune ITA No. 307/PUN/2023 Manjula Suresh Jain 6 Date 1. Draft dictated on 26-04-2023 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 26-04-2023 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member JM 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. Date of uploading order Sr.PS 8. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 10. Date on which file goes to the A.R. 11. Date of dispatch of Order. *