TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 454
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w Cause Notice demanded Rs.18,33,958 by invoking the extended period provisions. After due process, the Adjudicating Authority has confirmed the demand. On appeal Commissioner (Appeal) has considered the documentary evidence placed by the appellant and has set aside part of the demand and has confirmed the demand of Rs.9,98,468/- along with interest and penalty. Being aggrieved the appellant is before the Tribunal. 3. On going through the records, I find that for the consideration shown in the Form 26AS in respect of Aditya Enterprise, the same was claimed by the appellant that the firm belongs to him as the proprietor. The Commissioner (Appeal) has given a finding that there is no record to establish that Aditya Enterprise belongs to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ered, is impermissible in law. It is a settled legal position that mere entries in income tax returns or Form 26AS cannot, by themselves, establish liability under the Finance Act, 1994, unless corroborated by evidence demonstrating rendition of taxable service. 5.1. In support of this view, I rely upon the decision in the case of M/s. Rishu Enterprise vs Commissioner of C.G.S.T. & Excise, Dibrugarh, in Final Order No. 75177 of 2024 dated 08.02.2024 in Service Tax Appeal No. 75509 of 2022 [CESTAT, Kolkata], wherein this Tribunal has observed as under: - "8. In view of the judicial pronouncement of this Tribunal, we hold that merely on the basis of Form 26-AS issued by the Income Tax Department, the demand of Service Tax is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t aside on this ground itself." 7. It would also be relevant to go into the decision of Mumbai Bench on this issue : Homeopathic Medical Publishers Vs Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise FINAL ORDER NO. 86910/2025 dated 25/11/2025 "3. Learned Chartered Accountant also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in NimeshbhaiGunvantbhai Patel v. Union of India [(2024) 25 Centax 122 (Guj)] and several decisions of the Tribunal invalidating proceedings commenced with no allegation other than discrepancy between returns filed under the Finance Act, 1994 and under Income Tax Act, 1961 respectively. Relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, in Commissioner of Customs (Imports),....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at instructions of the Board to issue show cause notices based on the difference in ITR-TDS data and service tax returns only after proper verification of facts, may be followed diligently. Pr. Chief Commissioner /Chief Commissioner (s) may devise a suitable mechanism to monitor and prevent issue of indiscriminate show cause notices. Needless to mention that in all such cases where the notices have already been issued, adjudicating authorities are expected to pass a judicious order after proper appreciation of facts and submission of the noticee.' 7. The Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat, in re Nimeshbhai Gunvantbhai Patel, has held, in like circumstances and after narration of reconciliation offered by assessee, that: '16....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted case laws, I set aside the impugned order even on account of time barred. 9. The appeal stands allowed with consequential relief, if any, as per law. (Operative part of the order was pronounced in open court) ============= Document 1 Abresune - VIII 34 ANNEXURE-1 ASADITYA.ENTERPRISES PROP MANOJ KUMAR. PART - A 1 Name of the Assessee : MANOJ KUMAR 2 Address : RAHIMAPUR, HAJIPUR, DIST.VAISHALI, BIHAR-844503. 3 Permanent Account No : BYXPK52041 4 Status : Individual 5 Previous year ended = 31st March, 2016 6 Assessment year : 2016-2017 PART - B NATURE OF BUSINESS CODE 202 & 203 SI. No. PARAMETERES CURRENT YEAR PRECEDING YEAR'S54 1 Capital Account 11,36,739.00 2 Share Application Money 3 Reser....