AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (11) TMI 729
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evity the Act] for A.Y. 2017-18.The impugned order is emanated from the order of the ld. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax,(CPC), Bangaluru, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 143(1)of the Act date of order 11.12.2018. 2. The assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay of 35 days wherein, assessee has stated that the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 10th January 2022 extended the period of limitation for the purposes of limitation by excluding the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022, therefore, the delay of 35 days is condoned. 3. The assessee has taken the following grounds which are reproduced as below: "1. That the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred on facts and law in confirming the addition of Rs.8,86,320/- ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... processing the return u/s 143(1) vide order dated 11.12.2018 while rejecting the contention of the assessee that the amount of Rs. 8,86,320/-, being the gross receipt of cleaning of solar modules, cannot be charged tax as income and only 6% to 8% of the gross receipts can only be charged to tax while recording the finding that the assessee has not discharged the burden of proof explaining the circumstances for omission to record receipts/claim of tax credit and to record the expenditure. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off." 4. Brief fact of the case is that the assessee is an individual and filed its return of income on 28.03.2018 declaring....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ounsel for the assessee Mr. Sudhir Sehgal, vehemently argued and submitted written submission and the brief note which are kept in the record. During the argument Mr. Sehgal first mentioned the jurisdiction of ld. AO for adjustment of income derived from 26AS without giving reasonable opportunity to the asessessee. Mr. Sehgal relied on the judgment of different Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunals. He further argued that the issue was agitated before the ld. CIT(A). He pointed out the relevant paragraph of the order of the ld. CIT(A) which is extracted here paragraph 7.2 of the CIT(A) order: "7.2 The solitary issue for adjudication is whether the adjustment made in the intimation u/s 143(1) as per the data present in 26AS is justified....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid facts and circumstances. According to us, the CPC could not have made the adjustment since the question of fact arises on the factual matrix of this case as noted above. The assessee's contention is that the amount of Rs. 31,21,167/- is included in the turnover of Rs. 52,81,344/-. Therefore, merely based on TDS entries given in Form 26AS for deduction of tax u/s. 194J, the adjustment could not have been made without conducting any enquiry, more particularly when the man power supply is not covered as a profession within the meaning of section 44AA of the Act read with relevant notifications. We find force in the contention of the Ld. AR that this particular issue could not have been decided by the CPC u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act. In case,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r theaforesaid provision." 6. The ld. Sr. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the revenue authorities. 7. We heard the rival submissions and considered the documents available in the records. The jurisdiction of the assessing authority for processing of return u/s 143(1) is only restricted for certain conditions which is designated in the CBDT Instruction no. 1814 dated 04.04.1989. The Act is very clear in this issue, there is no such any ambiguity in the Act related to processing u/s 143(1). The income which was reflected in the 26AS is a gross turnover. So, the addition made on basis of the reflection in 26AS without allowing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. But the ld. AO suo motu added back the amount which is v....