Income Tax

No Penalty for discrepancy in salary figure between Form No. 16 and 26AS

For discrepancy in salary figure between Form No. 16 and 26AS it cannot be said that the assessee has concealed amount or furnished inaccurate particulars of income – ITAT

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2737 (2019) (01) ITAT

During scrutiny proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), the Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that as per 26AS, the assessee, apart from salary had also received commission and also the salary amount as per form 26AS was more than the amount declared in the return.

Since there is no response from the assessee in respect of the discrepancy between Form 26AS and Form 16, AO completed the assessment u/s 144 of the Act bringing the entire receipts as per 26AS and initiated penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act and levied penalty.

Aggrieved, assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), who upheld the AO’s decision and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved, assessee filed the instant appeal before the Tribunal.

The assessee submitted that the assessee while filing return of income, relied upon the figure of salary income as mentioned in salary certificate in Form No. 16 issued by the employer.

It was pointed out that there was a difference between Form No. 26AS and Form 16 despite both were provided by the same employer.

It was contended that as the assessee admitted income as per Form 16, it cannot be said that such difference represents concealment.

The Tribunal opined that with regard to salary, there was a difference between amounts as per Form No. 16 and Form No. 26AS and both were provided by the employer and the assessee has filed his return of income in accordance with Form No.16 issued by the employer.

The Tribunal held that in view of the above facts, it could not be said that the assessee had concealed amount or furnished inaccurate particulars of income.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • ICAI

Last date to submit MEF 2026-27 extended to 09.09.2026

ICAI has extended the last date to online submit Multipurpose Empanelment Form (MEF)- 2026-27 from 29th August 2026 to 9th…

15 minutes ago
  • Income Tax

Validity of demand u/s 156 for default u/s 115-O, if assessment order u/s 143(3) has Nil demand

Can a demand notice be issued u/s 156 for non-payment of Dividend tax u/s 115-O, when as per assessment order…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Issue already examined and adjudicated by CIT(Appeals), can’t be reopened on same set of facts

The issue already examined and adjudicated by the quasi-judicial authority, i.e., CIT(Appeals), cannot be reopened on the same set of…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

TDS can’t be denied for non deposit of tax deducted by the deductor – High Court

One TDS is deducted, credit has to follow, failure of deductor to deposit the amount to the credit of the…

4 days ago
  • Income Tax

Cash withdrawal from bank can’t be taxed u/s 69C as unexplained expenditure – ITAT

Merely because assessee did not explain purpose of cash withdrawal from bank, it can not be taxed u/s 69C as…

4 days ago
  • GST

A bland statement of ‘fraud or concealment of facts” in GST Notice u/s 74 not sufficient – SC

In GST Notice u/s 74, allegations should emanate from itself, a bland statement of ‘fraud or concealment of facts” not…

7 days ago