TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 86X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... audited and the receipts were not only confirmed by the three concerns as above, but 26AS statement and Form-16A submitted by them revealed undisclosed income The conduct of the petitioner taken as a whole, therefore, does not appear to be clean and bonafide in disclosing proper income in his IT return. Further the contention of the petitioner relying upon the decision in the case of M/s Kishinchand Chellaram [ 1980 (9) TMI 3 - SUPREME COURT] that the letter of confirmation relied upon by the AO and the revisional authority were not furnished to him, does not appear to be correct as the AO had confronted the assessee with these findings through letters dated 21 st January 2014 and 11th February 2014. Moreover, 26AS statements are maintained by the Department under Section 203AA of the Act and are not generated by the concerns from whom the petitioner has received the payments. As such, such arguments also do not cut ice. There is no quarrel about the scope of revisional jurisdiction of the CIT under Section 264 of the Act in support of which reliance has been placed by the petitioner upon the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Paradigm Geophysical Pty. Ltd. [ 2017 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alance of ₹ 30,11,898/- was added back to his total income and penalty proceedings under Section 271B of the Act was directed to be initiated for failure to get books of accounts audited. He was also asked to furnish evidence in respect of deduction claimed under Chapter VI-A at ₹ 1,00,000/-. Regarding deductions under Chapter VI-A on consideration of the evidence of ₹ 98,480/- provided by the assessee, the balance of ₹ 1520/- was disallowed and added back to his total income. Despite last opportunity granted to the petitioner, no compliance was made and therefore ₹ 30,11,904/- was added back to his total income and penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) and 271B of the Act were initiated. 3. Petitioner did not prefer any appeal but chose to move in revision before the Commissioner, IT. Before the Commissioner I.T. the assessee denied having received any amount from the above three parties. He also prayed that details of payment, mode of payment and date of payment may be called for from the above parties. According to the petitioner, no inquiry was conducted by the assessing officer regarding confirmation of payments and a huge demand of ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s duly deposited in the Government account under the respective TAN. The learned CIT therefore arrived at an opinion that there was no apparent reason to disbelieve the payments made to the assessee by these three concerns. Further, the assesse had not rebutted these findings with the help of any contrary evidence in spite of letters dated 21.01.2014 and 11.02.2014 issued upon him. It was also taken note of that the assesse did not challenge the receipts from M/s TATA Projects Limited and Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited, but was only interested in denying the bigger amount allegedly received by him from HES Infra Pvt. Ltd. Learned CIT also observed that no protest was lodged by the assessee at the stage of the assessment proceedings in denying the addition of income of receipts as regards the other two firms. Based on those findings the review petition was dismissed. 6. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved. Learned counsel for the petitioner has inter alia made the following submissions :- (i) The revisional authority failed to exercise powers conferred under Section 264 of the Act by making nece ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessarily required. He has also not been able to show that petitioner had any point of time made any complaint regarding fictitious entries of TDS in the 26AS statement either at the time of filing of original return or during scrutiny assessment. 8. Learned counsel for the Revenue Mr. Rahul Lamba has, at the outset, submitted that denial of 26AS statement is unheard of by the assessee. The certificate in Form-16A may be doubted as it is issued by the deductor of TDS who may be a private party but 26AS statements are reflecting the deduction of tax at source as against the assesse maintained by the Income tax Department. Petitioner has at no point of time made any complaint about wrong entries in the 26AS statement though any assessee avails the claims of TDS while filing the IT Return. It is further stated that petitioner's books of account were not properly maintained and rejected and therefore the assessing officer had treated profit @ 8% on the total gross receipts. Petitioner has cunningly not questioned the addition made upon confirmation of payment from two other concerns out of three, namely M/s Tata Projects Limited, Andhra Pradesh and Consolidated Construction C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come from the other two concerns namely M/s TATA Projects Limited and Consolidated Construction Consortium Limited either at the time of filing of his original return, though he has accepted the findings of the assessing officer during scrutiny assessment regarding addition of income of receipts from these two concerns. Petitioner has also not made any complaint at any stage regarding any fictitious or wrong entries in the 26AS statement reflecting tax deduction at source against receipt of payments from these three concerns. It further appears that the assessing officer had undertaken inquiries from these three concerns who confirmed the payments made to the petitioner during the financial year 2010-11. Since the petitioner's books of account were not maintained or audited and the receipts were not only confirmed by the three concerns as above, but 26AS statement and Form-16A submitted by them revealed undisclosed income of ₹ 30,11,898/-, after allowing certain deductions under Section VI-A of the Act, the total income of ₹ 31,62,383/- was assessed under Section 143 of the Act. Petitioner in his wisdom chose not to prefer any appeal but approached the learned CIT i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
