TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (9) TMI 977
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wn true particulars his income." iii. It is therefore, prayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A), be set aside and that of the assessing officer be restored. iv. The appellant craves to add, modify or alter any grounds during the course of appeal proceedings." 3. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual and filed his return of income on 28.09.2018, for assessment year 2017-18. The assessee is a partner in M/s Yogi Transport, a partnership firm, engaged in the business of logistics. Till financial year 2013-14, the assessee was carrying on transportation business as a proprietor in the name and style of M/s Yogi Transport. Thereafter, in financial year (F.Y.) 2014-15, there was a change in constitution and the proprietary concern of the assessee viz: Yogi Transport was converted in to a partnership firm. The name of the partnership firm was also titled as Yogi Transport. The assessee had filed his return for A.Y. 2017-18 on 29.03.2018 declaring total income to the tune of Rs. 12,25,050/- wherein he had shown business income and income from other sources. During the year under consideration, the partnership firm viz: Yogi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. Learned Senior Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr. DR) for the Revenue stated that first of all order passed by the ld. CIT(A), is a very small order. Though, the assessee has submitted the relevant details and documents before the ld. CIT(A), however, the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss these documents and details in his order and passed the order in brief. Apart from this, the Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue, relied on the statement of facts prepared by the Assessing Officer, which is reproduced below: "1. In this case, the assessee filed its ITR for AY 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs. 14,35,018/- on 28.09.2018. Thereafter, CPC passed its order u/s 143(1) on 15.04.2019 making addition on account of business income of Rs. 2,13,98,205/- based on the unclaimed TDS of Rs. 1,60,302/- in the 26AS of the assessee. 2. Aggrieved by the order passed by CPC, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. The contention of the assessee was as follows: On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned AO has erred in making prima facie adjustment and making addition of Rs. 2,13,98,205/- to the total income of the assessee ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....above extent on merits." 8. On the other hand, Shri Mehul Shah, Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that the Partnership firm (M/s Yogi Transport) had intimated all the customers about the change in constitution of M/s Yogi Transport and requested them to deduct tax at sources in the capacity of a partnership firm and not in the capacity of an individual proprietor i.e. the assessee. However, some customers had deducted tax at source in the assessee's name by quoting the PAN of the assessee in their respective TDS returns filed by them during the year under consideration. Therefore, total TDS of Rs. 1,61,448/- which was actually the tax deducted (TDS) of the partnership firm, was reflected in Form 26AS of the assessee. Hence, the assessee had claimed total TDS of Rs. 1,60,305/-, which actually was the tax deducted of the partnership firm M/s Yogi Transport, in the original return of income filed by him. The assessee had filed his original return of income on 28.03.2018 in which, due to over sight, had taken the credit of TDS which was deducted on the transport income of the partnership firm. However, upon realizing the fact that the corresponding income of TDS was accounted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... has claimed impugned TDS of Rs. 1,61,448/-. However, upon realizing the fact that the corresponding income of TDS was accounted for in the partnership firm and therefore, assessee had filed a revised return of income on 28.09.2018, (which is placed at paper book page No.29) wherein the assessee did not claim the said TDS and he paid the additional tax by way of self-assessment tax. Thus, the assessee had not claimed total TDS of Rs. 1,60,305/- in his revised return of income, therefore ld CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition in the hands of the assessee. 12. Therefore, we note that there was no fault of the assessee when some other party had wrongly deducted tax at source on any transaction by quoting the PAN of the assessee by mistake. The assessee had already informed to the customers that the proprietary business in the name of M/s Yogi Transport was closed and a new partnership was formed from assessment year (A.Y.) 2014-15 onwards. The assessee had also informed the PAN of the partnership firm of M/s Yogi Transport but customers wrongly deducted TDS by quoting assessee's PAN. Even after this fact was pointed out to these companies personally by the assessee, the said pa....