TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 835X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duced in the preceding paragraph. It is the submission of assessee that the Chief Divisional Retail Sales Manager of IOCL, Tirupati has issued form 26AS containing the details of payment and the addition made by the AO on account of difference in Form 26AS and income declared by the assessee does not belong to the assessee. It is his submission that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to reconcile the difference. We deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to give an opportunity to the assessee to reconcile the difference and decide the issue as per fact and law.The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.255/Hyd/2022 - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o add, amend, alter, modify, substitute, abridge and/or rescind any or all of the above grounds with the kind permission of the Hon'ble Tribunal at any time either before or on the date of hearing. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is the Kartha of the HUF and is carrying on the business of trading in Petrol, Diesel and other Petroleum products. The HUF operates a retail outlet in Tirupati. It filed its return of income on 26.09.010 electronically declaring income at Rs 6,09,221/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 143(3) on 28.3.2013 wherein the Assessing Officer apart from other small additions made an addition of Rs.40,95,794/- being the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO or office stamp on letter dated 08.01.2014 claimed to have been filed by the assessee which is a distinguishable feature when we compare the same with letter dated 16.07.2013. Therefore, the undersigned has no evidence that letter dated 08.01.2014 with rectified form 26AS was fled with the AO. In such circumstances, I do not find any fault in the rectification order dated 10.01.2014 wherein the AO has rejected the rectification application of the assessee with a specific mention that the assessee's request will be considered only after submission of full details of 'difference of gross receipts of Rs.40,95,794/ found in the assessee's 26AS viz. the name of the persons, PAN etc. to whom the gross receipts pertains. The AO is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le the difference to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. 8. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of the AO and the CIT (A)-NFAC and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find the AO made an addition of Rs.40,95,794/- on the ground that there is a difference in the gross receipts admitted by the assessee at Rs.20,26,253/- and the gross receipts from Indian Oil Corporation as per Form 26AS at Rs.61,22,047/- and the assessee expressed his inability to reconcile the difference in gross receipts. We find the assessee filed a rectification application u/s 154 stating that the credits added by the Assessing Officer do not pertain to the assessee. However, the Assessing Officer rejected ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
