Vikram Manibhai Mehta, B Block, Behind Bluestar Godown, Near Dena Bank, Mumbai-400013 Vs. Income Tax Officer 18(1)(3), , Mumbai.
August, 11th 2015
, "- "
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, MUMBAI
BEFORE S/SHRI B.R.BASKARAN (Accountant Member)
( / Assessment Year :2009-10)
Vikram Manibhai Mehta, / Income Tax Officer 18(1)(3), ,
B Block, Behind Bluestar Mumbai.
Godown, Near Dena Bank,
( /Appellant) .. ( / Respondent)
. / . /PAN/GIR No. :AABPM4215E
/ Appellant by Shri Vijaykumar S Biyani
/Rspondent by Shri Maurya Pratap
/ Date of Hearing : 10.8.2015
/Date of Pronouncement : 10.8.2015
/ O R D E R
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 13-
08-2014 passed by Ld CIT(A)-29, Mumbai and it relates to the assessment
year 2009-10. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of Ld CIT(A) in
confirming the addition of Rs.1,56,742/- relating to interest difference.
2. The facts relating to the issue are that the AO noticed that there is a
difference between the interest income declared by the assessee in the
return of income and the interest income found in the TDS certificates as
per Form No.26AS. The assessee had offered a sum of Rs.2,14,059/-,
whereas the same was shown at Rs.3,70,801/- in Form No.26AS. Hence
the AO assessed the difference between the two as income of the
2 I T A N o . 6 3 4 4 / Mu m / 2 0 1 4
assessee. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same and hence the assessee
has filed this appeal.
3. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee had deposited money with a
company named M/s Mahendra Brothers Exports Pvt Ltd both in his HUF
capacity. The above said company has uploaded the details relating to the
TDS in the PAN number of Individual and hence the Form No.26AS of the
individual status has shown interest income. The said interest income was
Rs.1,27,708/-. The Ld A.R submitted that the assessee furnished before Ld
CIT(A) a letter obtained in this regard from M/s Mahendra Brothers
Exports Pvt Ltd and hence the Ld CIT(A) has called for a remand report
from the AO. However, the assessing officer has reported in his report
that the income pertaining to the TDS amount should be assessed in the
reported PAN only as the TDS credit is given in the hands of the person,
whose permanent account number is given in TDS return. Hence the Ld
CIT(A) also agreed with the reasoning given by the AO.
4. The Ld A.R submitted that the TDS return has since been rectified by
the above said company and the interest income of Rs.1,27,708/- now
finds place in Form No.26AS pertaining to the HUF status of the assessee
in PAN No. AADHM2823E. In this regard, the Ld A.R invited my attention
to pages 11 and 12 of the paper book, wherein the Form No.26AS of the
HUF status is placed. He then invited my attention to Form No.26AS
pertaining to individual status, which is placed at page 9-10 of the paper
book, and submitted that the said Form No.26AS does not disclose any
interest income received from the above said company. The Ld A.R
further submitted that the assessee has already filed return of income in
HUF status duly disclosing the above said interest income and hence the
assessment of very same interest income in the individual status would
3 I T A N o . 6 3 4 4 / Mu m / 2 0 1 4
result in double assessment. He also invited my attention to the copies of
return of income filed in the HUF status.
5. The Ld D.R did not object to these factual aspects, but simply placed
reliance on the order passed by Ld CIT(A).
6. I heard the parties and perused the record. It is a well settled
proposition that the income can be assessed in the hands of right person
only. In the case of ITO vs. Ch. Atchaiah (1966) 218 ITR 239 (SC), the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the AO can and he must, tax the right
person and the right person alone. The 'right person' is meant to be the
person who is liable to be taxed, according to law, with respect to a
particular income. In the instant case, the tax authorities have mostly
gone by the data wrongly uploaded by M/s Mahendra Brothers Exports Pvt
Ltd. Now according to the assessee, the mistake has since been rectified.
The Ld A.R has also furnished copies of returns of income filed by the HUF
of the assessee, wherein the above said interest income of Rs.1,27,708/-
has been disclosed. Hence, in my view, there is no merit in assessing the
above said amount of Rs.1,27,708/- in the hands of the assessee for the
reasons cited above. However, it is not clear as to whether the assessing
officer has verified the rectified Form No.26AS and also the copies of
income tax returns of income filed by the HUF of the assessee. Hence, for
the limited purpose of verifying these documents, I restore this matter to
the file of the assessing officer, who is directed to examine the relevant
documents and delete the addition of Rs.1,27,708/-, if he is satisfied that it
has been disclosed in the returns of income filed in the HUF status.
7. With regard to the remaining amount of addition, the Ld A.R
conceded that the assessee could not reconcile the difference. Accordingly
I confirm the addition of balance amount.
4 I T A N o . 6 3 4 4 / Mu m / 2 0 1 4
8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as partly
allowed for statistical purposes.
Pronounced accordingly on 10th August 2015.
10th August, 2015
(.. / B.R. BASKARAN)
/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Mumbai: Aug, 2015.
. ../ SRL , Sr. PS
/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. / The Appellant
2. / The Respondent.
3. () / The CIT(A)- concerned
4. / CIT concerned
5. , , /
DR, ITAT, Mumbai concerned
6. / Guard file.
/ BY ORDER,
, /ITAT, Mumbai