Shikha Yadav, Meerut v. ITO, New Delhi

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH G DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV JM AND SHRI K. D. RANJAN AM I. T. APPEAL NO. 4467 (DEL) OF 2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07. SHIKHA YADAV THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER C/O. MEHRA & CO. C. AS.; 7 RAJESHWARI PALACE VS. W A R D : II (3) NEAR COMMISSIONER RESIDENCE CIVIL LINES M E E R U T. M E E R U T. PAN / GIR NO. AAS PY 5044 N. ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPON DENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI CHANDER MEHRA ADV.; DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI B. KISHORE SR. D. R. O R D E R. PER K. D. RANJAN AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) MEERUT. THE ONLY ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATIO N RELATES TO CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN SALARY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY TWO COMPANIES. THE FACTS OF THE CASE STATED IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EMPLOYED WITH TW O COMPANIES NAMELY M/S. PERSANDI BUILDERS P. LTD. AND M/S. EMM VEE INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA P. LT D. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED SALARIES AMOUNTING TO RS.72 000/- AND RS.81 000/- RESPECTIVELY FROM M/ S. PERSANDI BUILDERS P. LTD. AND M/S. EMM 2 I. T. APPEAL NO. 4467(DEL) OF 2009 VEE INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA P. LTD.. THE ASSESSING OF FICER HOWEVER NOTED THAT AS PER COMPUTATION OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SALARY OF RS.36 0 00/- AND RS.48 000/- RESPECTIVELY FROM THE TWO COMPANIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCY. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT OF SALARY SHOWN SHORT WAS DUE TO INADVERTENCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER REJE CTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.69 000/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETW EEN THE AMOUNT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN SALARY CERTIFICATES. 2. BEFORE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SALARY RECEIVED FROM PERSANDI BUILDERS P. LTD. AND M/S. EMM VEE AMO UNTED TO RS.36 000/- AND RS.48 000/- RESPECTIVELY ONLY. TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS COPIES OF ACCOUNT OF SALARY FROM BOTH THE COMPANIES WERE FILED. THE LD. C IT (APPEALS) SOUGHT CLARIFIC ATION FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF WHICH HE REACHED HIS CONCLUSION. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CLARIFY THE DIS CREPANCY. THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE COMPANY ACTUALLY SHOWED THE SALARY DRAWN AT RS.72 0 00/- AND RS.81 000/- FROM M/S. PERSANDI BUILDERS AND M/S. EMM VEE P. LTD. RESPECTIVELY. TH E LD. CIT (APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ALSO THE CLARIFICATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WAS QUITE JUSTIFIED IN HIS DOUBTS AS WELL AS IN HIS CONCLUSION. THE COPIES OF ACCOUNT FILED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAVE LESSER CREDENCE THAN THE SALARY CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY THE TWO COMPANIES FROM WHICH SALARIES WERE DRAWN AND COPIES OF WHICH HAD BEEN SENT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH HIS CLARIFICATORY LETTER. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ACCORDINGLY CONFIRME D THE ADDITION OF RS.69 000/-. 3. BEFORE US THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT CORRECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT OF RS.69 000/-. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE COMPANIES HAVE FILED COPY OF STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF MS. SIKHA YADAV IN THEIR BOOKS ACCORDING TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS.48 000/- FROM EMM VEE P. LTD. AND RS.36 000/- FROM PRASANDI BUILDERS P. LTD. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AFFIDAVITS HAS BEEN FILED F ROM M/S. PERSONDI BUILDERS P. LTD. M/S. EMM VEE INFRASTRUCTURE P. LTD. STATING THEREIN THAT THE AMOUNT OF SALARY SHOWN IN THE SALARY 3 I. T. APPEAL NO. 4467(DEL) OF 2009 CERTIFICATES WAS AT RS.72 000/- AND RS.81 000/- RES PECTIVELY AS AGAINST THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF SALARY PAID BY THEM AT RS.36 000/- AND RS.48 000/ -. AFFIDAVIT FROM MS. SHIKA YADAV THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO BEEN FILED ACCORDING TO WHICH TH E SALARY OF RS.36 000/- AND RS.48 000/- HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THESE TWO COMPANIES. ON THE BAS IS OF THESE EVIDENCES IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE DISCREPANCY IN THE SALARY CERTIFICATE STAN DS CLARIFIED. THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) SHOULD BE DELETED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. SR. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) . 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE AFFIDAVIT AS WELL AS COPIES OF ACCOUNTS WITH TW O COMPANIES IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED RS.48 000/- AND RS.36 000/- FROM THESE COM PANIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCY IN AMOUNT OF SALARY WITH THE HELP O F AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPECTIVE COMPANIES AND AS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE AFFIDAVITS WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT WILL BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE CASE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED SALARY OF RS .36 000/- AND RS.48 000/- FROM THESE COMPANIES. FOR THIS PURPOSE HE MAY CONDUCT NECESSA RY ENQUIRY AT HIS END. HE MAY SUMMON THE BOOKS OF RESPECTIVE COMPANY TO FIND OUT THE TRUTH. THE AO WILL PASS ORDERS AFTER AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON : 30 TH APRIL 2010. SD/- SD/- [ RAJPAL YADAV ] [ K. D. RANJAN ] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 30 TH APRIL 2010. *MEHTA * 4 I. T. APPEAL NO. 4467(DEL) OF 2009 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : - 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT 4. CIT (APPEALS) 5. DR ITAT NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT.