9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (5) TMI 1580X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ld PCIT-8 erred in not considering the explanation and submission furnished by the assessee which clearly explain the issue along with necessary supporting and have further directed to make an addition of Rs. 1,76,66,250/- treating the same as undisclosed professional income. 3. The Ld PCIT-8 erred in not following the judgement passed by both the ITAT as well as the Bombay High Court which has clearly held in Appellants own case that no addition could be made to the appellant assessable income on the grounds of non-reconciliation of TDS with the receipts in the appellant bank accounts. 4. The Ld PCIT-8 failed to appreciate and completely disregarded decisions of the Bombay high court and Bombay bench of the ITAT thereby rendering such order passed under sec 263 of the income tax act 1961 as bad in law and null and void. 5. The appellant craves leave to add further grounds or to amend or alter the existing grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing." 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a Senior Counsel practicing before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. For the relevant assessment year, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred the part payment into the assessee's bank account and deducted & deposited entire TDS on accrual basis to the government on assessee's PAN Thus, the assessee claimed, TDS relating to the amount actually received and carries forward the excess TDS amount deposited by the parties and claims the said excess as and when the corresponding amount received from the parties. To substantiate his claim, the assessee furnished details of party wise TDS deducted and offered in return of income. iv.1.1. On the verification of the party wise TDS details mentioned in Para iv.1 (supra), it was seen that with regards to the TDS claims shown in TABLE below corresponding income was not offered for during relevant financial year. Details of TDS credits carried forward to the A. Y. 2020-21 but corresponding income offered during A.Y. 2019-20 was NIL: S.No. S.No. as per the submission of the assessee C/F to next year (in Rs. ) 1. 7 1,40,000/- 2. 46 66,000/- 3. 76 82,500/- 4. 97 99,000/- 5 144 16,500/- 6 145 13,62,625/- TOTAL 17,66,625/- With regards to the above, the assessee was requested to clarify whether corresponding income was offered during A. Y, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corresponding to such income. 5.3 Since in this case the assessee has failed to do so and has claimed TDS despite the fact that such income has not been offered to tax completely in the relevant year in which TDS has been claimed, such income should be disallowed as per the provisions of the Act 5.4 Thus in the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, Professional Income for which TDS has been claimed by the assessee had to be disallowed which the AO has erroneously allowed in the assessment order. This required verification of such claims as per the provisions of the I.T. Act, 1961. In view of the above reasons the assessment order passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 23.09.2022 is erroneous in so far as being prejudicial to the interest of revenue." 6. In the show cause notice U/s 263 of the Act we find that the assessee replied the said notice by a letter dated 16/12/2024 and assessee reconciled the alleged income amount to Rs. 1,76,66,250/- corresponding to TDS claimed during the impugned assessment year, before the Ld.PCIT. The relevant explanation is extracted below:- Sr.No TAN Name of the Party Income TDS Remark 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee's letter dated 08.10.2008 addressed to the AO). In the absence of any contrary material brought on record by the Revenue to establish that the assessee had received income in excess of what was declared, no addition was warranted. It is also on record that the professional income declared by the assessee exceeded the amount reported in the AIR. Various legitimate reasons-such as lower or non-deduction of tax, reimbursement of expenses, etc.-may account for discrepancies between the AIR data and the income reported. Further, the assessee explained that a detailed party-wise break-up of fee receipts was impractical, as payments were received either directly from clients or through instructing advocates or chartered accountants. Such explanation had been accepted in prior scrutiny assessments, as duly recorded. In light of the above, we find merit in the assessee's contention, and accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition." 9. We further observe that the above decision has been followed by the coordinate bench of the ITAT, Mumbai Bench "G" in the assessee's own cases in ITA No. 4608/Mum/2022 (A.Y. 2008-0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
