Sum reflected in Form 26AS can’t be tax unless it was established that assessee was actual beneficiary: ITAT

Case Details: Dr Swati Mahesh Vinchurkar v. DCIT - [2021] 130 taxmann.com 320 (Surat-Trib.)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Pawan Singh, Judicial Member and Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Accountant Member
  • Pallav Desai, CA for the Appellant. Ms. Anupma Singla – Sr. DR for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

Assessee was a doctor by profession and was a resident of Surat City, State of Gujarat. He filed a return claiming a refund of Rs. 450. However, the CPC, Bangalore, while processing the return of income, made the addition of Rs. 5,63,952.

The CPC made these additions based on the statement of TDS in Form-26AS, being tax deducted at source (TDS) by Electricity Distribution Division Gajraula-UP and other entries by way of salary income and TDS deducted by Electricity test division Amroha-UP. However, the assessee denied having earned any such income on which tax was deducted. On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by CPC. Aggrieved-assessee filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal.

ITAT Held

The Tribunal held that the assessee had no concern or casual connection or any relation with the alleged deductor; the entry of TDS in the Form-26AS issued to the assessee was wrong. The assessee submitted her response to CPC Bangalore and before CIT(A) and specifically denied having earned such income.

Further, it was submitted by the assessee that it is far from the imagination that the assessee served such organization, which is based 1000 KM away from the residence of the assessee.

Once the assessee denied such transaction, the onus was on the revenue to establish that the assessee had entered into any such transactions. The CIT(A) had not made any verification or effort to verify such transactions. There was the possibility of entering the wrong PAN, which belonged to the assessee, and the assessee had been unnecessarily put under mental pressure by making such additions despite denying such income. Thus, addition merely based on TDS reflected in the Form-26AS, ignoring the submissions of the assessee, was liable to be deleted.

List of Cases Referred to

• • ACIT v. Zee Media Corpn. Ltd. [IT Appeal Nos. 2166 & 2695 (Mum.) of 2016, dated 16-4-2018] (para 3)
  • Seal For Life India (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2018] 96 taxmann.com 645/173 ITD 229 (Ahd. – Trib.) (para 3)
  • Ravindra Pratap Thareja v. ITO [2015] 60 taxmann.com 304/154 ITD 633 (Jabalpur – Trib.) (para 3).