Appeal allowed, CIT(A) order overturned as Assessee's explanation and evidence shift burden to Department.

The appeal was allowed, overturning the CIT(A) order, as the Vice President found the addition unsustainable. The Assessee's explanation for discrepancies, supported by lease agreements and Mumbai ITAT precedent, shifted the burden to verify data accuracy onto the Department. The Assessee's lack of control over 26AS data and the possibility of differing accounting policies or client TDS errors justified the deletion of the addition, aligning with the Mumbai ITAT decision.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against CIT(A) order for Assessment Year 2014-15 regarding Rental Facility Income discrepancy.

Analysis:
The appellant, a construction and property development company, filed a return declaring income of Rs. 99,80,689. During assessment, the AO noted a discrepancy in Rental Facility Income from various customers as per books and 26AS. The difference totaled Rs. 5,98,398. The Assessee argued that its books were audited, all income was disclosed, and discrepancies arose due to different tax treatment in 26AS. The AO rejected the contentions and added the amount to the income. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, leading to the appeal. The Assessee argued that out of 29 customers, discrepancies were found in only 7, and the gross revenue was Rs. 5.49 crores, making non-disclosure of Rs. 5,98,398 improbable. They explained that 26AS included "Other Services" income, not part of Rental Facility Income. Citing a Mumbai ITAT case, the Assessee contended that the Department should verify data accuracy, not burden the Assessee. The DR supported the CIT(A) order.

The Vice President noted that the addition was based solely on the income difference in 26AS and books. The Assessee's books aligned with lease agreements, and no defects were found. Referring to the Mumbai ITAT case, it was held that the Assessee fulfilled its burden by explaining discrepancies and that differences could stem from varying accounting policies or incorrect TDS filings by clients. The Assessee lacked control over 26AS data, and the Department should investigate instead of imposing additions. Consequently, the addition was deemed unsustainable, and the appeal was allowed. The Vice President found the case analogous to the Mumbai ITAT decision, leading to the deletion of the addition. Thus, the Assessee's appeal was allowed, overturning the CIT(A) order.

---