Sh. Harsh Tankha, Muzaffarnagar V. DCIT, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 6825/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7134 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 14-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 18-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Salary income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC-I : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.6825/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 HARSH TANKHA, C/O 2, ANAND VIHAR LANE, NO.1, CIRCULAR ROAD, MUZAFFARNAGAR. PAN: ABGPT7165A VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, MUZAFFARNAGAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANKIT GUPTA, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI N.K. BANSAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.09.2016 ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 1.7.2014 IN RELATION TO THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAIN ST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.4,18,831/-, BEING THE AMOUNT OF EXC ESS TAXABLE SALARY AS PER REVISED FORM NO.26AS. ITA NO.6825/DEL/2014 2 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE, AN IAS OFFICER, DECLARED TO HAVE RECEIVED SALARY OF RS.12 ,12,233/- DURING THE YEAR ON WHICH TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AMOUNTING TO RS.1,88,688/-. THE AO, ON THE PERUSAL OF FORM NO. 26AS, OBSERVED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN TO HAVE RECEIVED TOTAL SALARY OF RS.20,22,971 /-. ON BEING CALLED UPON TO CLARIFY HIS STAND, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT HE RECEIVED SALARY ONLY TO THE TUNE OF RS.12.12 LAC AND THE REMAINING SALARY SHOWN IN FORM 26AS AT RS.8.10 LAC AND TDS OF RS.1.02 LAC DID NOT RELATE TO HIM. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION AND ADD ED THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS.8,10,738/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED FORM NO.26AS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), SHOWING SALARY INCOME AS UNDER:- SL. NO . NAME OF THE EMPLOYER AMOUNT OF SALARY RECEIVED . (I) NAGAR NIGAM, MORADABAD RS. 3,42,124/- (II) TREASURY OFFICE, BAREILLY RS.11,33,002/- (III) BULANDSHAHR DEV. AUTH. RS. 1,55,940/- TOTAL SALARY RS.16,31,066/- 4. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE SALARY SHOWN BY TREASURY OFFICE, BAREILLY AT RS.11,33,002/- WAS WRONG. NOT CONVINCED WITH THE AS SESSEES SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. CIT(A) CAME TO HOLD THAT THE A SSESSEE RECEIVED SALARY ITA NO.6825/DEL/2014 3 FROM HIS EMPLOYERS TOTALING RS.16.31 LAC. THIS RE SULTED INTO CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.4,18,831/- (RS.16,31, 066 - RS.12,12,235/-). THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THIS ADDITION. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. AR FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT FROM T HE TABLE REPRODUCED ABOVE, THE SALARY SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM NAGAR NIGAM, MORADABAD AND BULANDSHAHR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY IS CORRECT . HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS POSTED ON DUTY DURI NG THE YEAR AT THREE PLACES MENTIONED ABOVE. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE SA LARY SHOWN IN THE REVISED 26AS BY TREASURY OFFICE, BAREILLY AT RS.11, 33,002/- WAS WRONG. A COPY OF REVISED FORM NO.26AS SHOWING SALARY PAID/ CREDITED AT RS.11,33,002/- IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THERE ARE 17 TRANSACTIONS UNDER MAIN HEAD NO. 5. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SALARY PAYMENTS SHOWN AT SL. NO. 13 TO 17 DO NOT PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE AS DURING THIS PERIOD HE WAS WORKIN G WITH NAGAR NIGAM, MORADABAD, FROM WHICH THE SALARY WAS SEPARATELY SHO WN. A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY OFFICE OF THE CHIEF TREASURY OFFICER, BAR EILLY SHOWING RECEIPT OF GROSS SALARY AT RS.6,96,367/- AND THE CORRESPOND ING AMOUNT OF TDS IS ITA NO.6825/DEL/2014 4 AVAILABLE AT PAGE 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THIS IS AGAI NST THE SALARY OF RS.11,33,002/- RECORDED IN REVISED FORM NO.26AS. S INCE THERE IS CONTRADICTION IN THE CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE OFFI CE OF CHIEF TREASURY OFFICER, BAREILLY AND THE REVISED FORM NO.26AS, I C ANNOT PROPERLY ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, TH E IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE ASSESSE ES CLAIM QUA THE RECEIPT OF SALARY SHOWN AT SL. NOS.13 TO 17 IN FOR M NO. 26AS FOR ASCERTAINING IF THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY RECEIVED THI S AMOUNT OF SALARY FROM TREASURY OFFICE, BAREILLY AND THEN DECIDING ACCORDI NGLY. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ALLOWED AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEAR ING IN SUCH FRESH PROCEEDINGS. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.09.20 16. SD/- [R.S. SYAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 15 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016. DK ITA NO.6825/DEL/2014 5 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.