9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 977X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rayed that the order of Ld. CIT(A), be set aside and that of the assessing officer be restored. iv. The appellant craves to add, modify or alter any grounds during the course of appeal proceedings." 3. Succinctly, the factual panorama of the case is that assessee before us is an Individual and filed his return of income on 28.09.2018, for assessment year 2017-18. The assessee is a partner in M/s Yogi Transport, a partnership firm, engaged in the business of logistics. Till financial year 2013-14, the assessee was carrying on transportation business as a proprietor in the name and style of M/s Yogi Transport. Thereafter, in financial year (F.Y.) 2014-15, there was a change in constitution and the proprietary concern of the assessee viz: Yogi Transport was converted in to a partnership firm. The name of the partnership firm was also titled as Yogi Transport. The assessee had filed his return for A.Y. 2017-18 on 29.03.2018 declaring total income to the tune of Rs. 12,25,050/- wherein he had shown business income and income from other sources. During the year under consideration, the partnership firm viz: Yogi Transport had carried out transportation work of the under mentioned part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h, the assessee has submitted the relevant details and documents before the ld. CIT(A), however, the ld. CIT(A) did not discuss these documents and details in his order and passed the order in brief. Apart from this, the Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue, relied on the statement of facts prepared by the Assessing Officer, which is reproduced below: "1. In this case, the assessee filed its ITR for AY 2017-18 declaring total income of Rs. 14,35,018/- on 28.09.2018. Thereafter, CPC passed its order u/s 143(1) on 15.04.2019 making addition on account of business income of Rs. 2,13,98,205/- based on the unclaimed TDS of Rs. 1,60,302/- in the 26AS of the assessee. 2. Aggrieved by the order passed by CPC, the assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A), NFAC. The contention of the assessee was as follows: On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned AO has erred in making prima facie adjustment and making addition of Rs. 2,13,98,205/- to the total income of the assessee by correlating the transportation income to TDS of Rs. 1,60,302/- reflected in Form 26AS of the assessee and treating the same as income from other sources. The CIT(A) has allowed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ransport and requested them to deduct tax at sources in the capacity of a partnership firm and not in the capacity of an individual proprietor i.e. the assessee. However, some customers had deducted tax at source in the assessee's name by quoting the PAN of the assessee in their respective TDS returns filed by them during the year under consideration. Therefore, total TDS of Rs. 1,61,448/- which was actually the tax deducted (TDS) of the partnership firm, was reflected in Form 26AS of the assessee. Hence, the assessee had claimed total TDS of Rs. 1,60,305/-, which actually was the tax deducted of the partnership firm M/s Yogi Transport, in the original return of income filed by him. The assessee had filed his original return of income on 28.03.2018 in which, due to over sight, had taken the credit of TDS which was deducted on the transport income of the partnership firm. However, upon realizing the fact that the corresponding income of TDS was accounted for in the partnership firm and therefore, he filed a revised return of income on 28.09.2018, wherein he did not claim the said TDS and paid the additional tax by way of self-assessment tax. Thus, the assessee had not claimed total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is placed at paper book page No.29) wherein the assessee did not claim the said TDS and he paid the additional tax by way of self-assessment tax. Thus, the assessee had not claimed total TDS of Rs. 1,60,305/- in his revised return of income, therefore ld CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition in the hands of the assessee. 12. Therefore, we note that there was no fault of the assessee when some other party had wrongly deducted tax at source on any transaction by quoting the PAN of the assessee by mistake. The assessee had already informed to the customers that the proprietary business in the name of M/s Yogi Transport was closed and a new partnership was formed from assessment year (A.Y.) 2014-15 onwards. The assessee had also informed the PAN of the partnership firm of M/s Yogi Transport but customers wrongly deducted TDS by quoting assessee's PAN. Even after this fact was pointed out to these companies personally by the assessee, the said parties did not care to revise their TDS returns. Thus, there was no fault on the part of the assessee, as the assessee has also subsequently filed revised return of income on 28.09.2018, wherein the assessee did not claim the said TDS of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... istake of entering the wrong PAN, which belongs to the assessee and the addition made in the income is uncalled for. 6. We further find that the coordinate bench of Tribunal in Ravindra Pratap Thareja (supra) held that merely because a payment was reflected in Form-26AS and was shown to have been made to the assessee, it could not be brought to tax as it could not be established that the assessee was actual beneficiary of said payments and the additions was liable to be deleted. Considering the above said factual and legal discussions, and keeping in view of the peculiar facts of the case, no purpose would serve to restore the matter back to the file of assessing officer or to Income-tax Officer (TDS), as prayed by ld Sr.DR for the revenue. In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed." 13. Based on the above factual position, we note that action of assessing officer, in making prima facie adjustment by adding the turnover to the tune of Rs. 2,13,98,205/-, in the hands of the assessee, is quite illogical and unjustifiable in as much as it has resulted into double taxation. The partnership firm, M/s Yogi Transport had already accounted for this turnover ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
