Sh. Randhir Singh, Mandi Gobindgarh V. ITO, W-2, Mandi Gobindgarh

ITA 734/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0454 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Salary income; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH , ! ' # . %.. . & , '( ' BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & DR. B.R.R.KUMAR, AM ITA NO.734/CHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHRI RANDHIR SINGH, # 490, BHAI SUKHA SINGH COLONY, VILLAGE-KOTLA DADHERI, MANDI GOBINDGRH. VS THE ITO, WARD-2, MANDI GOBINDGARH. PAN NO: AXGPS5644F APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DEEPAK AGGARWAL #!' REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 08.10.2018 '()*! & D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.11.2018 ')/ ORDER PER DIVA SINGH THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASS AILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 16.03.2018 OF CIT(A)-1, L UDHIANA PERTAINING TO 2013-14 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE ID. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,22,620/-, BY MAKING REVERSE CALCULATION OF TAXABLE INCOME ON THE BASIS OF SELF ASSESSMENT TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,16,000/ - WHEREAS, AS PER THE ASSESSEE THE SELF ASSESSMENT TAX WAS WRONGLY D EPOSITED AND A SUM OF RS.1,02,484/- IN TOTAL WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK AC COUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE IMPUGNED PERIOD, THEREFORE THE ADDITION IS PRAY ED TO BE DELETED. 2. THAT THE ASSESSEE PRAYS FOR ANY CONSEQUENTIAL RELIE F AND/OR LEGAL CLAIM ARISING OUT OF THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME. 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE PRAYS FOR ANY ADDITION, DELET ION, AMENDMENT AND MODIFICATION IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE SAME I N THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE LD. AR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE RECORD SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE U/S 144 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL RELIED UPON WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED THROUGH E-MAIL AND THUS, THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES WHICH THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO PLACE ON RECORD BY WAY OF AN APPLICATION DATED 04.09.2018 UNDER RU LE 18(4) COULD ITA 734/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 2 OF 3 NOT BE FILED. THE EVIDENCES BEING RELEVANT AND CRUCIAL FOR DETERMINING THE ISSUE, IT WAS SUBMITTED, MAY BE ACCEPTED AND THE APPEAL M AY BE REMANDED TO THE AO. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION RELYING UPON THE APPLICATION FILED ; THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS ABOUT INADVERTENT LY DEPOSIT OF ADVANCE TAX BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST HIS PAN, BEING AN ACCOUNTANT IT WAS HIS DUTY TO MAKE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE TAX OF HIS EMPL OYER, ALTHOUGH THE SAID PAYMENT WAS TO BE MADE AGAINST THE PAN OF HIS EMPLO YER. BUT INADVERTENTLY IT WAS PAID AGAINST THE PAN OF THE AS SESSEE. 2.1 THE LD. SR.DR ON CONSIDERING RECORD SUBMITTED THE ISSUE MAY BE REMANDED TO THE CIT(A) AND NOT THE AO AS THE FRESH EVID ENCES FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE CAN BE REMANDED TO THE AO AND THE CIT(A) CAN CONSIDE R AND DECIDE THE ISSUE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CAS E, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS SALARY INCOME OF RS. 1,80,000/- FROM PRIVATE PARTIES AND RS. 35,500/- FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN PART TIME WORK OF FILING APPLICATION FORMS FOR PAN CARDS AND ADHAAR CAR DS. THE ASSESSEE, AS PER RECORD, BEFORE THE CIT(A) STATED THAT W HILE MAKING ONLINE PAYMENT TAX OF RS. 1,16,000/- WITH RESPECT TO ANOTHER AS SESSEE M/S PARAM STEEL INDUSTRIES, KHANNA FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT, TH E ASSESSEE MISTAKENLY MENTIONED HIS OWN PAN. THE SAID CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE CIT(A) HOLDING AS UNDER : THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CONSIDE RED. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT WAS EASILY VERIFIABLE PROVIDED THE APPELL ANT FURNISHED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM PARAM STEEL INDUSTRIES AND DEMONSTRATED THE WITHDRA WAL OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF SELF- ASSESSMENT TAX OF RS.1,16,000/- FROM THE BANK ACCOU NT MAINTAINED BY THEM. FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT, THE SAME WAS N EVER BROUGHT BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEN THE APPELLAN T WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. EVEN IN THE APPE LLATE PROCEEDINGS, SUCH EVIDENCE HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT OUT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE VERACI TY OF HIS CONTENTIONS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE CONTENTI ON OF THE APPELLANT, THE AVERMENT MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS CANNOT BE CONSIDE RED AS GENUINE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE ACTIO N OF THE AO IN MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION TO THE RETURNED INCOME AS IT IS VERY REASO NABLE TO HOLD THAT THE SELF- ASSESSMENT TAX, WHICH IS NOT ON ESTIMATE BUT BASED ON ACTUAL CALCULATIONS, WOULD NOT BE SO DIFFERENT SO AS TO CLAIM A REFUND OF THE SAME . THE MERE FACT THAT THE DEPOSIT IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT WAS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF SELF- ASSESSMENT TAX PAID DOES NOT GO ON TO PROVE THAT TH E DECLARED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WAS CORRECT AND GENUINE. AS STATED EARLIE R, SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX IS NOT AN ESTIMATED TAX LIKE ADVANCE TAX AND HENCE CLAIM OF R EFUND OF THE SELF-ASSESSMENT TAX, DOES NOT INSPIRE TRUST. THE APPELLANT DID NOT BRING OUT ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. 4. WE FIND THAT THE FRESH EVIDENCES RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ITAT CONSISTS OF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR DIFFERENT YEARS ITA 734/CHD/2018 A.Y. 2013-14 PAGE 3 OF 3 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT FIND THAT THIS IS SUFFICIENT AND RELEVANT FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESEN T CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,16 ,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN FROM M/S PARAM STEEL INDUSTRIES. WE ALSO NOTE THAT NO AFFIDAVIT ETC. ON BEHALF OF THE SAID CONCERN IS MAD E AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HOWEVER, SINCE LD. AR HAS MADE A PRAYER FOR REMAND WHICH ON FACTS HAS NOT BEEN OPPOSED BY THE DEPARTMENT, WE SET ASIDE TH E ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO PASS A SPE AKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE FIND THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE EVIDENCES FILED ARE NEITHER RELEVANT NOR SUFFICIENT TO DECIDE THE ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE, IN ITS OWN INTEREST IS D IRECTED TO PLACE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES ON WHICH HE WOULD SEEK TO PLAC E RELIANCE. SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ITSELF. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN TERMS OF PRONOUNCEMENT MADE IN THE COUR T. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.11. 2018. SD/- SD/- ( . %.. . & ) ( ) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) (DIVA SINGH) '( '/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ! '/ JUDICIAL MEMBER + , (+! ,-.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT - 2. THE RESPONDENT - 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2 45&456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE (+ $ BY ORDER, ; # ASSISTANT REGISTRAR