2019 (2) TMI 620

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is an individual and filed her return of income on 2nd December, 2009 declaring total income of Rs. 3,47,910/-. During the course of processing of the return u/s 143(1), it was found that the assessee had shown nil receipts in column 1 of the P&L Account of ITR-4. However, the copy of form 26AS generated from the system revealed that the assessee has received Rs. 16,05,263/- during the financial year 2008-09 on which TDS of Rs. 1,72,043/- had been made by the respective tax deductors. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment after recording reasons and notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued to the assessee on 8th August, 2011. Subsequently, detailed notice u/s 142(1) was also issued to the assessee asking him to explain ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed and is showing the same on receipt basis. Further, the assessee has not filed return of income for assessment year 2008-09, therefore, the Assessing Officer held that the gross receipts as appearing in Form No.26AS are to be considered for assessment purpose during the year under consideration. Rejecting the various explanation given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 3,60,364/- being the difference between Rs. 15,06,263/- and Rs. 12,44,899/-, after recording the following facts:- "(i) The assessee has not produced any evidence, which could substantiate payment of service tax. (ii) At one hand, the assessee is claiming that the gross receipts appearing in Form 26AS include the amount of Rs. 6,31,750/-, which ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he ld.CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under:- "3. The ld. A.O. has found that there was discrepancy between the gross income as deductible from the information available on Form 26AS and that declared by the appellant in the returned of income. The appellant is contesting the same. 4. Although the appellant has furnished voluminous records and documents the discrepancy between the gross income deductible from Form 26AS and that returned by the appellant in the return of income does not get resolved by the voluminous documents placed on record. 5. There is no infirmity in the impugned assessment order and no interference is called for in the same. 6. By impugned assessment order is therefore confirmed. The....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....may be decided in favour of the assessee since the assessee has properly reconciled the difference in the Form No.26AS and the income shown by the assessee. 8. The ld.DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and CIT(A). 9. I have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. I find the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 3,60,364/- on the ground that the assessee could not reconcile the difference between Rs. 16,05,263 as per Form No.26AS and the income of Rs. 12,44,899/- shown in the P&L Account towards direct income. I find from the various details furnished by the assessee in the paper book that the ld. counsel for the assessee has successfully recon....