AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM,
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. CIT(A)] order dated 17.10.2024 arising out of the assessment order dated 22.03.2021 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘the Act’) by the National e-assessment Centre, Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the ‘AO’) pertaining to Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2018-19.
During the course of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. This appeal was heard after hearing the Ld. Sr. DR and on the basis of material available on record.
Brief facts of the case are that: The case was selected for Complete Scrutiny assessment under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues: -
S. No. Issues
Business Income of Trust
In this case, the assessee had filed its e-return of income for the A.Y.2018-19 on 27/10/2018 vide acknowledgement No.350732001271018 declaring total income of Rs. Nil. The return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961. Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny under the E-assessment Scheme, 2019 on the following issues.
Sr. No. Issue
1 Business income of Trust
The AO noted that on perusal of 26AS data, it is seen that the assessee society has received contract payment of Rs. 28,00,000/- during the year under consideration.
The assessee submitted that the assessee society had received only Rs. 20,50,000/- (claimed corresponding credit of TDS of Rs 41,000/-) during the year under consideration out of total amount mentioned in the captioned notice of Rs. 28,00,000/- and the balance amount of Rs.7,50,000/- was not related to the assessee society and was never received by the assessee society during the year relevant to the captioned assessment year. Further, the assessee submitted that the society has been maintaining its books of account on cash basis and has recognized all the income on receipt basis which was evident from the bank statements of the assessee society that no such income (i.e. Rs.7,50,000/-) was received by the assessee society during the year under consideration. In this regard, the assessee also submitted the relevant bank statement.
The assessee also submitted the copy of acknowledgment of Return of Income reflecting credit of TDS of Rs. 41,000/- on income of Rs. 20,50,000/- for the year relevant to the captioned assessment year before the AO.
The AO made enquiries from various deductus except M/s Philips India Ltd. u/s 133(6) of the Act, calling the details of payment to the assessee alongwith relevant details as mentioned in para no. 3 on page no. 3 of the assessment order.
Upon receipt of the reply the AO found that the assessee had received a net amount of Rs. 7,35,000/- and TDS deduction thereupon was Rs. 15,000/- totaling Rs. 7,50,000/- from the parties as per the details on page no. 4 of the assessment order, which was not offered for taxation by the assessee. Therefore, the was treated as unexplained income u/s.69A which was not offered for tax and added back to the total income of the assessee and taxed as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act.
Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee is in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The relevant extract of the said order is reproduced as under:
“ 6.3 On perusal of above tabulated information, it is crystal clear that the appellant had received the payment from the above mentioned parties during the year under consideration but failed to offer the same as its income for the year under consideration.
7.Even during the entire appellate proceedings, the appellant has not furnished any documentary evidence to substantiate its contention. Therefore, denial by the appellant cannot be avail without any satisfactory/concrete reply/reason for ignoring the unaccounted receipt of Rs. 7,50,000 (28,00,000-20,50,000) from the contractors. Hence, the appellant has failed to discharge its primary onus to explain for not offering the deference amount of Rs. 7,50,000 (28,00,000-20,50,000) received from the contractors for taxation.
8 Based on the facts discussed above, despite being provided with multiple opportunities, the appellant has remained failed to discharge its primary onus to substantiate its grounds of appeal. Therefore, it is presumed that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal and does not have any documents, explanation and evidence to substantiate the grounds of appeal. The appellant has not furnished even a single piece of evidence to substantiate his stand. Therefore in absence of any documentary evidences I do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal.
8.1In view of the above no relief can be granted to the appellant. Hence, addition made by AO of Rs. 7,50,000/- as per assessment order is upheld. Ground 01 is dismissed.”
Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee is in appeal before the us, on the following grounds of appeal:
“ 1. The Revenue has erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 7,50,000/- as contract receipt not offered to tax and treated it as an unexplained income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2.The order of the revenue is bad in law and on facts.”
The Ld. Sr. DR supported the order of the authorities below.
We have heard the ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record. In this case, the dispute is with respect to addition of Rs. 7,50,000/- u/s 69A of the Act on account of unexplained income, which as per the AO was an account of discrepancies in the contract receipts shown by the assessee amounting to Rs. 20,50,000/- in its Income & Expenditure Account and ITR filed as against an amount of Rs. 28,00,000/- noticed in the 26AS data of the Assessee. It is a fact that the AO made the necessary inquires by issuing notices u/s 133(6) of the Act to the parties from whom the assessee had received the contracts receipts and as per the said information the total contracts receipts by the assessee during the year was Rs. 28,00,000/-. On the other hand, it is also a fact that the assessee submitted before the AO that the said sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- did not belong to the assessee society and therefore the same has not been accounted for as income of the year relevant to the captioned assessment year and also the assessee society had not claimed corresponding credit of TDS of Rs. 15,000/- in its return of income submitted for the captioned assessment year. Therefore, in the given facts of the case, the matter needs a fresh factual verification by the AO after giving one more opportunity to the assessee to explain the above discrepancies. Ground no. 1 of the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.