TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 306X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The assessee should not be deprived of his legitimate claim and tax has to be levied on the income actually generated. We considering the overall facts, circumstances and judicial decisions are inclined to grant one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate the claim. Accordingly, the disputed issue is restored to the file of the AO for limited purpose and the A.O shall examine and pass the order. We allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purpose. - ITA No. 4276/Mum/2019 (Assessment Years: 2015-16) - - - Dated:- 22-3-2021 - SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Appellant by : Shri Govind Prasad, AR Respondent by : Shri Rajesh Kumar , (CIT-DR) ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee at the time of filing of return has disclosed Director s remuneration from Singapore Companies in US Dollar (USD) and the tax deduction was claimed in USD. Whereas the salary certificate discloses the Director s remuneration and withholding tax in Singapore Dollar. The assessee inadvertently declared directors remuneration of USD 93256.44 and withholding tax USD 8984.42from M/s Sparkle Clean Holdings instead of USD 47456.08 and withholding tax USD 9491.00 as per certificate issued to the assessee in Singapore Dollar. The assessee has requested the A.O. to reduce Directors remuneration by ₹ 28,66,662/- and increase with holding tax by ₹ 31,707/-. The AO on verifying these ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd perused the material available on record. The sole crux of the disputed issue is that the assessee is an employee and filed the return of income with higher income. Whereas, the salary certificate in respect of director remuneration issued by M/s Sparkle Clean Holdings is ₹ 29,70,314/- instead of ₹ 58,36,976/- disclosed in the income tax return and similarly there is difference in withholding tax. The contentions of the Ld.AR that that the assessee should not be made to pay the tax on higher salary but only actual salary has to be taxed. The ld AR also submitted that the mistake on the part of the employee is not a wanton act but due to oversight the correct income could not be considered in the return of income filed. We fou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
