M/S. S. MAHAVEERCHAND JAMAD, CHENNAI V. ITO,NCW-22(4), Chennai

ITA 880/CHNY/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7163 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 01-11-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण,‘डी’ यायपीठ,चे ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI ी जी मंजूनाथा, लेखा सद के सम , ी अिनके श बनज , ाियक सद एवं BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A No.:880/Chny/2020 िनधा रण वष /Assessment Year: 2017 - 2018 M/s. S. Mahaveer Chand Jamad (Firm), No.54, G.S.T Road, Chengalpattu, Chennai – 603 001. PAN : ACZFS 7278 R Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward – 22(4), Tambaram (Business Range), 1st & 2nd Floors,Ramakrishna Street, West Tambaram, Chennai – 600 045. (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) अपीलाथ क ओरसे/Appellant by : Shri. M. Mahendra Kumar, Advocate यथ क ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क तारीख/Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 घोषणा क तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 15.06.2022 आदेशआदेशआदेशआदेश /O R D E R PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, JM: The instant appeal was filed by the Assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Chennai (in brevity “the CIT(A)”) bearing order No.ITBA/APL/S/91/2020-21/1027891191(1) for the Assessment Year 2017 – 2018, order dated 28.08.2020 passed u/s.250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity “the Act”). The said ::2 :: I.T.A. No.880/Chny/2020 impugned order was generated from the order of the learned Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward – 22(4), Tambaram [TBM] (in brevity “the AO) passed u/s.143(3) of the Act, order dated 14.12.2019. 2. The brief fact of the case is that during the assessment proceedings, the learned Assessing Officer found that the salary of three employees, Shri. Nitesh, Supervisor – Rs.2,40,000/-, Shri Rishab, Accountant – Rs.1,20,000/- and Shri Dharshan, Supervisor – Rs.2,40,000/- was entered in the books of accounts in a fabricated manner. The learned Assessing Officer pointed out that Shri Nitesh’s salary was not found in the cash book and the other two employees salaries were made in a single day in the month of March. The Assessee during the assessment year 2017 – 2018 had started his business of running a petrol bunk of the Indian Oil Corporation [IOC]. The total addition that was made was Rs.6,00,000/-. Aggrieved, the Assessee filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) allowed the salary of Mr. Nitesh which amounts to Rs.2,40,000/-, as it was paid through the banking channel. Hence, there was no need of entering the same in the cash book. But, in the case of the other two employees, their salaries were upheld and the appeal was partly allowed. Aggrieved, the Assessee filed an appeal before the ::3 :: I.T.A. No.880/Chny/2020 Tribunal for consideration of the addition amounting to Rs.3,60,000/-. 3. The learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted a written submission on 22.03.2022. During the proceedings, he mentioned that both the employees of the Assessee have submitted their Income Tax Returns [ITRs] u/s.139 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2017 – 2018. The computation of the employees is attached along with the written submissions. He pointed out that the salary amount was declared in the return of income filed u/s.139 of the Act. A copy of the ITRs of Shri Rishab, Accountant bearing E-Acknowledgement No. 412920580260218 and Shri Dharshan, Supervisor bearing E-Acknowledgement No. 981885220300717 is in record. As per the learned Counsel of the Assessee, the amount should not be taxed twice, both in the hands of the employer as well as the employee. Hence, the entire payment is genuine and accordingly has been offered for taxation by the employees. 4. The learned Departmental Representative vehemently argued and relied upon the order of the learned CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival submissions and relied upon the documents that are available on records. The Assessee is a dealer ::4 :: I.T.A. No.880/Chny/2020 of a petrol bunk of the IOC. In this assessment year, the Assessee had started his business. As per the learned Counsel of the Assessee, he is totally new in maintaining the books of accounts and in running the business. The salary of both the employees are declared and accordingly offered for tax in the return filed u/s.139 of the Act. The amount cannot be taxed twice, both in the hands of the employer as well as the employee. We find no merit in the order of the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal of the Assessee in I.T.A No.:880/Chny/2020 is allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 15th June,2022at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जीमंजूनाथा) (G. MANJUNATHA) लेखा सद /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (अिनके श बनज ) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) ाियकसद एवं /JUDICIAL MEMBER चे ई/Chennai, िदनांक/Dated, the 15th June, 2022 IA, Sr. PS आदेशकी#ितिलिपअ&ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant 2. #(थ /Respondent 3. आयकरआयु+ (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकरआयु+/CIT 5. िवभागीय#ितिनिध/DR 6. गाड0फाईल/GF