TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (4) TMI 1046
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act') - for Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the appellant firm is engaged in the sale of stage lighting & stage furnishing equipment. The appellant's assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on the returned income of Rs. 61,43,000/-. The appellant claimed credit for TDS of Rs. 24,81,348/- in its Return of Income (ROI). However, the AO found that credit for TDS of Rs. 17,30,832/- was wrongly claimed as the income corresponding to this TDS was accounted for by one of the sister concerns of the appellant, namely; M/s Modern Stage Services (P) Ltd. Accordingly, the AO did not allow the claim for credit of TDS observing as under: "It was admitted by assessee that the payment had been made to Modern Stage Ser....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....red at the level of deductor, the assessee could have got it corrected by asking such deductor to furnish a simple correction statement. The assessee instead of getting the matter sorted out and correcting the form 16A deliberately & knowingly claimed credit of other person's TDS in its name which was patently wrong and not permissible under the law. If the income had been booked by the M/s Modern Stage Services Pvt. Ltd. , then the credit of TDS could only be allowed to them and not to assessee. In view of this, the credit of TDS of Rs. 17,30,832/- was withdrawn and the assessee was liable to pay tax on account of this withdrawal. The assessee did so advertently to avoid incidence of tax due." 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....edings were mentioned in the body of order itself. It was submitted that the liability of the assessee is to offer all credits/receipts as its income and claiming tax credit of other person is legally unacceptable. The Ld. DR further submitted that even if any mistake had occurred at the level of deductors, the assessee could have got it corrected by asking such deductors to furnish a simple correction statement. The assessee instead of getting the matter sorted out & rectfying form 16A, deliberately & knowingly claimed credit of the TDS of other persons in its name which was patently wrong and not permissible under the law. It was submitted that if the income had been booked by M/s Modern Stage Services Pvt. Ltd., then the credit of TDS co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xplanation offered is found to be false by the AO or the explanation offered is not substantiated and bonafide is not proved. Explanation 1 of 271(l)(c) enacts the rule of evidence whereby the onus is on the assessee and if he fails to discharge the burden the presumption of furnishing inaccurate particulars of income can be drawn. Such presumption is to be discharged by "cogent, reliable and relevant materials" as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. K. R. Sadayappan 185 ITR 49. It is the assessee's contention is that it has wrongly claimed credit of TDS of M/s Modern Stage Services (P) Ltd. on the fact that the deductors have issued TDS certificates in its name because of the similarity in the names of the two alon....