9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (5) TMI 1296X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (the learned AO) was dismissed. 2. Therefore, the assessee is aggrieved with the appellate order and thus has preferred appeal raising following grounds:- i. The learned CIT - A his order in law and in facts in not holding that the AO has erred in passing assessment order under section 154 read with section 143 (1) of that which is bad in law, illegal and Null and void. ii. The learned CIT - A has already law and in facts in not holding that the AO erred in passing the assessment order in gross violation of principles of natural justice. iii. The learned CIT - A has already law and in facts in confirming the amount withdrawn from provident fund of Rs. 3,291,601/- as income of the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refore there is an adjustment required under section 143 (1) (a) (vi) of the act. It specified that there is a difference in salary income shown as per the return of income of Rs. 8,382,814 whereas as per the form number 26AS such sum is shown to be 95,82,814 and therefore there is a difference of Rs 12 lakhs. Another point was with respect to income from other sources whereas the income as per income tax return was disclosed at Rs. 2,40,896 whereas form number 26AS show that it is Rs. 3,471,746 and therefore there is a difference of Rs. 3,256,850/-. After that assessee also received a communication from centralised processing Centre on 17/12/2018 which is on medication of proposed adjustment under section 143 (1) (a) of the Income Tax Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce in the computation of salary between assessee and the central processing Centre. The assessee has disclosed the income from salary of Rs. 7,564,496/- and central processing Centre has computed the salary income at Rs. 1,08,56,097/- thus there is a difference of Rs. 3,291,601/- which is the amount received by the assessee from employees' Provident fund withdrawn. 6. Assessee preferred an application under 154 of the act stating that central processing Centre while calculating computation under section 154 of the act has taken the withdrawal made by the assessee from his provident fund account of Rs. 3,291,601/- as income of the assessee chargeable under the head of salary. Assessee stated that this is the amount which is been withdrawn b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) [ld. CIT (A)] on 15/09/2023 dismissing the appeal of the assessee holding as under:- "4.1 Grounds of Appeal No. 1 & 2 are against the addition of Rs. 32,91,601/- w.r.t. amount withdrawal from PF and assessing the Total income of the appellant at Rs. 1,19,52,670/- as against the Total Income of Rs. 86,61,076/- declared in the Return of Income by the appellant. 4.1.1 I have considered the submissions made by the appellant based on facts and circumstances of the case along with the order of the AO and perused the material available on record. The Ld. AO passed order u/s 154 of the Act on 20.07.2021 where the Ld. AO has rejected the application on the ground that the assessee-appellant has neither shown the inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed. Therefore, it stated that the order passed by the learned assessing officer under section 154 of the act is devoid of any merit without considering the explanation of the assessee that the income shown is exempt under section 10 (12) of the act and further there is no new claim made by the assessee. Accordingly, it was submitted that the sum of Rs. 3,291,601/- is amount withdrawn by the assessee from his provident fund account after serving with its previous employer for five years and therefore such sum is not chargeable to tax under section 10 (12) of the act. It was stated that all these details are provided before the lower authorities, but they have been ignored. 11. The learned departmental representative imminently supported the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties are not sustainable in holding that the above sum withdrawn by the assessee from employees' Provident fund account after serving for more than five years with his previous employer.it is not denied that if the above conditions are satisfied, the income is exempt under section 10 (12) of the act. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the orders of the lower authorities which were passed without looking into the facts of the case stated in 2 rectification applications filed before the containing all the evidence. In view of this, we direct the learned assessing officer to delete the addition made of withdrawal made by the assessee from his provident fund account which is exempt under section 10 (12) of the act. 13. In the result, groun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
