Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2016 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 859 - AT - Income TaxAddition on interest income on the basis of AIR data - Held that:- There is no dispute to the fact that the assessee is following mercantile system of accounting. Moreover, as per the AIR information available in Assessing Officer’s record, assessee in the relevant F.Y. has received interest of ₹ 6,60,822 from Everest Niwara. This fact is also evident from form no.26AS, a copy of which is submitted before us by the learned Counsel for the assessee. Therefore, once the interest amount has been credited to the assessee and tax has been deducted by the payer, the assessee cannot take the plea of not offering the income on the ground that he has not actually received the same. We, therefore, do not find any infirmity in the action of the Departmental Authorities in assessing the amount of ₹ 6,60,822. However, we accept assessee’s alternative claim that if the said amount is treated as income of the assessee, then credit for TDS has to be given. As it appears from Form no.26AS, an amount of ₹ 68,064, has been deducted at source by the payer while crediting the interest amount of ₹ 6,60,822. We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to verify this fact and give credit of the TDS to the assessee accordingly. Disallowance of professional fee and salary expense - non–deduction of tax as reason as no proof of same has been submitted - Held that:- The assessee has submitted documents by way of additional evidence to indicate that expenditure incurred towards professional fee and salary are genuine. Considering the fact that the evidence produced have a crucial bearing for determining assessee’s claim, we admit them as additional evidence. However, it is a fact on record that these evidences were not filed before the Departmental Authorities. Moreover, it has been contended by the learned counsel that payment of professional fee would not attract the provisions of section 194J in view of the second provision to sub–section (1) of section 194J. It is found that this argument advanced by the learned counsel before us was not taken before the Assessing Officer or the first appellate authority. Therefore, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel as aforesaid on applicability of section 194J as well as the additional evidence produced, we are of the view that the matter relating to allowance of assessee’s claim on professional fee and salary requires examination afresh.
|