Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 60 (1.33 seconds)Ajay Sharma, New Delhi vs Dcit, Ghaziabad on 5 March, 2019
"3.5 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In
this case, initially return of income was filed at a total income of Rs. Rs.80,56,970/-,
however thereafter, a revised return of income was filed on 31.03.2011 declaring total
income of Rs. 1,03,90,410/- wherein additional income of Rs. 23,33,440/- was declared
being income from house property of Rs.11,19,700/-, interest from FDRs of
Rs.10,43,740/- and consultancy fee of Rs.1,70,000/-. The authorities below however
22
ITA Nos. 543 to 547/JP/2024
Ajoy Sharma vs. DCIT
rejected the revised return saying 13 ITA NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS
ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR that the original return of income was not filed u/s 139(1).
Moreover, it was not a case of voluntary disclosure but it was only after issuance of
notice u/s 143(2), the assessee came forward and declared the additional income.
However, we did not find ourselves in agreement with such contentions raised by the
department in as much as the notice u/s 142(1) along with query letters were issued on
06.09.2011 whereas the revised return was already filed on 31.03.2011, showing the
additional income. The notice u/s 143(2) is normally a formal notice showing the
selection of the case for scrutiny and to comply with the limitation provision. Nothing was
brought on record by the revenue if the assessee was specifically asked or investigation
was made with reference to all the three items of income additionally declared.
Otherwise also, the revenue may be technically correct in not considering the later return
of income as a revised return but it cannot be denied that additional income was shown
by the assessee himself and it is not the case of the revenue that they unearthed the
additional income by carrying out investigations. In addition, we find force in the
contention by the Ld. AR that there were justified reasons behind delayed declaration of
additional income from these sources. Hence, it was not improbable if the original return
could have been filed beyond the due date of Section 139(1) waiting for the correct and
complete information of income to be included, necessitating an upward revision of
income. Further had the assessee woke up only after issuance of notice u/s 143(2), he
could have filed the revised return immediately but not after a long gap of 5 months i.e.
on 31.03.2011. Undisputedly, the assessee is aged 61 years mainly deriving salary
income and stationed at Mumbai whereas his chartered accountant was situated at
Jaipur. It was a period when there was less or no automation and the department also
could not bring on record that every income suffering TDS was being shown through
form 26AS in time nor it is shown that Form 16A if issued by all those parties providing
income to the assessee, were timely given to the assessee. The contention of the
revenue that additional income suffered TDS and, therefore, the assessee should have
declared for the income in the original return itself, is far from the ground realities which
prevailed at the relevant point of time. It was a quite usual practice for the deductor to
issue certificate in form 16A or to upload the same in form 26AS lately. It cannot be
denied that the assessee must have been under a bona fide impression that all such
incomes were subjected to TDS and therefore, he is not concealing any income from the
department. The decisions cited in the penalty order do not help the revenue being
rendered in different factual context. In the past also, the income from all the three
sources have never been to this extent. The consultancy income was for the first time.
The rental income was maximum upto Rs.2,00,000/- till A.Y 2008-09 and first time only
this went upto Rs. 11,19,700/- (net). The interest on FDR which was additionally
declared at Rs. 10,43,740/- was maximum upto Rs. 2,21,000/- in AY 08-09. It is 15 ITA
NO. 968/JP/2019 SURESH MAL LODHA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR noticed that
Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd earlier reported the interest payment to the assessee in form
26AS dated 10.08.2013 at Rs. 7,72,571/73 as against the correct amount of Rs.
56,491/67 only (copy placed at page 23 of assessee's paper book) however, later on,
the same very bank accepting this mistake of wrongly showing much higher amount,
admitted the correct amount of income at Rs. 56,491/67 only as per form 26AS uploaded
till 20.03.2020 at page 45 of the assessee's paper book. This was agreed by the bank
also vide its letter dated 21.10.2011 copy of which is available on record. Though the ld.
AR contented that the assessee also accordingly wrongly declared the FDR interest at
Rs. 10.43 lacs as an additional income (included in Rs. 23.33 lacs) as against the
correct interest of Rs. 54,491/67 only however, this not being subject matter of appeal,
23
ITA Nos.