TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 841X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he extent revenue has been recognized in AY 2016-17, the assessee shall be granted relief. Needless to say that the assessee be given opportunity of being heard. Appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose. - ITA No.149/Del/2022 - - - Dated:- 18-5-2023 - Shri Shamim Yahya, Accountant Member And Shri Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Sh. Gagan Kumar Adv. And Sh. Vivek Kumar, CA For the Revenue : Sh. Sanjay Tripathi, Sr. DR ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Face Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi, dated 19.11.2021 pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The grounds of appeal reads as under:- I. That the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... total income at Rs.35,11,020/- after making an addition of Rs.4,67,450/- on account of mismatch of TDS. The assessee filed rectification application u/s 154 on 03.01.2019 against the assessment order. The AO considered and duly verified the Form 26AS and record available. The AO found that there was a total difference of TDS amounting to Rs.46,745/- between the amount of TDS of assessee and the ITS data available. Out of this amount Rs.1750/- in TDS has been due to revised TDS return. The AO vide order dated 27.05.2019, rectified the differential amount of TDS to Rs.44,995/- and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.34,93,520/- after addition of Rs.4,49,950/-. 4. Upon assessee s appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) considered the submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5. Against the above order, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated that the assessee had already recognized the income constituting 90% of the fee which was realized during the AY 2016-17. He claimed that only TDS component of Rs.46,748/- had not been recognized as the same was not reflecting in Form 26AS as on the date of filing of return. Hence, the ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that this is a case of double taxation and the issue may be remitted to the file of the AO to examine the veracity of the plea of the assessee. 7. Per contra, the Ld. DR did not oppose the above proposition. 8. Accordingly, in the inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
