AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (8) TMI 1715
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 35,92,641/- on account of difference in receipts of Rs. 41,62,389/- shown in Form No. 26AS and receipt of Rs. 5,69,748/- shown in the return of income ignoring that the differential amount is on account of incorrect amount reported by the deductor in Form 26AS or on account of the fact that the receipt has already been taken into account in the books in FY 2007-08 relevant to A.Y. 2008- 09. 3. The assessee craves to amend, alter and modify any of the grounds of appeal. 3. Necessary cost be allowed to the assessee." 2. The assessee is a cooperative society engaged in the activity of collection of electricity and water bills of JVVNL/Public Health Department (PHD). The as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gainst Rs. 33,21,705/- shown in the original Form No. 26AS considered by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the ld AR has submitted that there was a factual mistake in the amount shown in the Form 26AS being receipt from JVVNL, which was subsequently rectified and the amended Form No. 26AS was issued, which is placed at page No. 13 of the paper book. The ld AR has further submitted that since during the year under consideration, the assessee has not rendered any service of collecting bills on behalf of the JVVNL and PHED as the contract was expired and it was not renewed, therefore, the entire receipt shown in the Form No. 26AS pertains to the earlier year. He has referred the amount as receivables as on 31/3/2008 at page No. 23 of the paper book....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....blish that the said amount as shown in Form No. 26AS pertains to the earlier assessment year was already considered while computing the income for the earlier assessment year. The ld DR has relied upon the orders of the authorities below. 6. We have considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record. The Assessing Officer proposed to make the addition on account of difference in the total receipts shown in the Form No. 26AS of Rs. 41,62,389/- as against the receipts shown in the books of account at Rs. 5,69,748/-. Thus, the Assessing Officer proposed to make the addition of the differential amount of Rs. 35,92,641/- while issuing the notice U/s 148 of the Act. We find that the original Form No. 26AS shows the total....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oduced before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) did not allow the time to the assessee to submit the reconciliation of receipts and supporting documents. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that prima facie the assesee has brought on record the material to show that the correct figure of receipts as per the amended Form No. 26AS is Rs. 19,14,066/- as against Rs. 41,62,389/- out of which the amount of Rs. 5,18,392/- was already declared by the assessee and not in dispute and hence the difference comes to about Rs. 14 lacs. As we have already noted that the amount at about Rs. 15 lacs was received by the assessee from the receivables as on 31/3/2008 and the balance of receivables shown as on 31/3/2009 is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y who is engaged in collective disposal of labour of its members will be exempted if amounts of profit and gains of business is attributable to these activities. The question is whether the interest income arising from FDR can be considered as income attributable to collective disposal of labour of its members. In the case of Bihar State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vs. CIT (1960) 39 ITR 114, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India observed that it cannot be said that the funds of the bank which were not lent to borrowers but laid out in the form of deposits in another bank to add to the profit instead of lying idle necessarily ceased to be a part of the stock in trade of the bank or that interest arising therefrom did not form part of its business....