• twitter-icon
Unlimited Tax Return Filing


ITAT Supports AO for Difference B/W 26AS and ITRs Failed by Assessee

Mumbai ITAT's Order for Vijay Kashinath Jagtap

When the assessee failed to show a discrepancy between the 26AS form and income tax returns, the Mumbai bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) recently affirmed the addition made by the assessing officer.

Assessee Individual Vijay Kashinath Jagtap earns a salary from M/s. Pfizer Ltd. to support himself. The assessee filed his income tax returns, both original and updated, disclosing a thirty lakh rupee income. The difference in the payment received as per Form 26AS was included as “unexplained cash credits” by the assessing officer after the scrutiny assessment and he willingly gave the amount for taxes in accordance with Section 68 of the I-T Act 1961. The assessee filed an appeal with the ITAT against this ruling.

No one is speaking on behalf of the assessee, therefore the ITAT panel hears the departmental representative and reviews the papers that are on file before deciding the appeal.

Recommended: ITAT Permits Tax Deduction for Filing Audit Reports with Returns U/S 11(1)(a)

The assessee, according to Vranda U. Matkarni, counsel for the revenue, failed to provide any documentary evidence to explain the difference in salary income before the lower authorities and had intentionally revised his income return twice by declaring a lower amount as “salary income” in order to fraudulently claim a higher refund that was established by the department.

The division bench of ITAT, comprised of Kavitha Rajagopal (Judicial Member) and Prashant Maharishi (Accountant Member), dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee after taking into account the claims of both sides “The assessee has failed to establish the difference amount specified in Form 26AS and the returns filed by the assessee. Though several opportunities have been given to the assessee, the assessee has failed to furnish any documentary evidence for rebuttal. Hence assessee has nothing to controvert the view of the lower authorities in making the addition under the section. 68 of Income Tax Act 1961.”

Case TitleVijay Kashinath Jagtap Vs DCIT
CitationITA No. 1440/Mum/2022
Date22.12.2022
Appellant ByNone
Respondent ByShri Vranda U. Matkarni
Mumbai ITATRead Order

Disclaimer:- "All the information given is from credible and authentic resources and has been published after moderation. Any change in detail or information other than fact must be considered a human error. The blog we write is to provide updated information. You can raise any query on matters related to blog content. Also, note that we don’t provide any type of consultancy so we are sorry for being unable to reply to consultancy queries. Also, we do mention that our replies are solely on a practical basis and we advise you to cross verify with professional authorities for a fact check."

Published by Arpit Kulshrestha
Arpit Kulshrestha seeks higher interests in financial services, taxation, GST, I-T, etc. Writes articles with depth knowledge and is extensive for the same. The resources provide effective articles for the products of SAG infotech which provides taxation and IT software. Writing from observations and researching makes his articles virtuous. View more posts
SAGINFOTECH PRODUCTS

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Follow Us on Google News

Google News

Latest Posts

New Offer for Tax Experts

Huge Discount on Tax Software

Upto 20% Off
Tax, ROC/MCA, XBRL, Payroll, Online GST

Limited Offer, Hurry

Best Offer for Tax Professionals

Upto 20% Discount on Tax Software

    Select Product*

    Genius Software