AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Per Renu Jauhri, Accountant Member:
The above captioned appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 06.08.2025, passed by CIT(A)/NFAC u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") for A.Y. 2023-24.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
"1.That the learned Assessing Officer has erred both on facts and in law in making addition of Rs.136127564/- merely on the basis of figures reflected in Form 26AS, without appreciating that the appellant had duly recorded the correct receipts of Rs.3208539303/- in its books of accounts, and the difference was only due to mismatch, timing difference, or reporting error by the deductor.
2.That the learned Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that Form 26AS is not only conclusive evidence of income accrued or received by the assessee, and the same cannot be treated as final figure unless it is corroborated/reconciled by corresponding entries in the assessee's books of accounts.
3.That the addition made merely on the basis of Form 26AS, without bringing on record any independent material to prove that the appellant has actually received such income, is arbitrary, unjustified, and liable to be deleted.
4.That the learned Assessing Officer failed to discharge the burden of proof as required under law and has ignored the reconciliation statement duly furnished by the appellant. The action of the Assessing Officer in treating the difference of Rs.13,61,27,564/- as unexplained income is contrary to the settled judicial precedents.
5.The addition so made is wholly unjustified, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled principles of law. It is a settled position that Form 26AS is not conclusive evidence of income but only an information statement showing tax deducted at source. Any mismatch therein must be examined in the light of the assessee's audited books of accounts and supporting documentation.
6.The appellant reiterates that all receipts have been duly recorded and the reconciliation submitted before the Assessing Officer clearly explains the difference. The addition based merely on 26AS figures, without verification of actual receipts, deserves to be deleted."
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company, a civil contractor, filed its return for A.Y. 2023-24 on 29.09.2023 declaring income of Rs.22,71,02,510/-. A refund of Rs.1,49,81,250/- was claimed by the assessee on a/c of excess TDS deducted. However refund of only Rs.1,29,49,980/- was granted to him. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an application for rectification u/s 154 of the Act which was rejected.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before Id. CIT(A). Vide order dated 06.08.2025, Id. CIT(A) directed the AO to allow full credit for TDS but enhanced the gross receipts by Rs.13,54,91,376/- as per Form 26AS. Aggrieved further, the assessee has filed appeal before the Tribunal.
Before us, Id. AR has submitted that the sole issue involved is regarding reconciliation of Form 26AS with the books of account. It has been explained that bills of earlier years were accounted for in this year's Form 26AS. In support of his claim, an application for admission of additional evidences has been filed for necessary reconciliation.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for considering the assessee's submissions regarding bills issued in F.Y. 2021-22 amounting to Rs.18.73 cr. which were accounted for in that year but for which TDS was deducted in F.Y. 2022-23 and allow the same, if found correct. The assessee is directed to furnish requisite evidences before the JAO to enable proper reconciliation.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.