AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner Income Tax (Appeals)-22, New Delhi dated 26.11.2019 arising from the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act') dated 19.12.2018 by Assessing Officer, ACIT, Circle-2(1), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2016-17.
The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1.“Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals) 22, (hereinafter referred to as 'Learned CIT(A') under section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), is bad in law and void ab-initio.
2.Based on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals) 22, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as 'Learned CIT(A) under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') has erred in treating the difference of Rs 18,81,584/- between TDS as appearing in Form 26AS and the return of income, as concealed income received outside books of accounts.”
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business of outdoor advertisement and marketing related activities. The business of the assessee primarily comprises of owning or purchasing outdoor media spaces which are billboards hoardings and various other media formats in shopping malls commercial complexes business centers etc. and to sell or give it on leases to its clients and other related services. The assessee company filed its return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 on 16.10.2016 and revised return of income on 18.04.2017 declaring an income of Rs.2,51,07,340/-. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the proceedings under section 143(3) of the Act have been completed on 19.12.2018 wherein a total amount of Rs.21,97,528/- has been disallowed. Among other, the disallowance of Rs.18,81,584/-, being difference between gross receipt as per 26AS and sales as per P&L account, was also made.
Aggrieved by the order of the ld. AO, assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved, assessee is now in appeal before us.
Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is an addition made on account of the fact that there was a mismatch between TDS credit available as per Form 26AS and TDS credit claimed in the return, by the assessee. The assessee also submitted that the reconciliation details were filed before the ld. CIT(A) and prayed for setting aside the matter to the AO for reconciliation.
Per contra, ld. DR relied on the order of the AO.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We find that the issue relates to difference in correct claim as per the TDS credit shown in the Form 26AS and the TDS credit claimed in the return. We accordingly, in the interest of natural justice, find it prudent to set aside the issue of reconciliation between TDS credit available in Form 26AS and TDS credit availed in the return to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to give three effective opportunities to the assessee and the assessee is also directed to avail the opportunities and explain the difference in TDS credit.
In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No.446/Del/2026 is allowed for statistical purposes.