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 >>

----------- Similar Posts: -----------
Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Jewellery purportedly received from grandparent under Will added as unexplained credits

Addition u/s 68 for jewellery purportedly received on death of grandparent under Will upheld. In a recent judgment, ITAT upheld…

1 day ago
  • bankruptcy

SC lays down tests to determine if a debt is financial debt or operational under IBC

Supreme Court lays down tests to determine whether a debt is a financial debt or an operational debt under IBC…

1 day ago
  • Income Tax

Commonality of directors of companies does not mean deposits received was bogus

Merely because directors of two companies were common not mean that deposits received was bogus and companies were shell companies…

2 days ago
  • ITAT

Application though named as rectification but if tax is not legitimate, it also touches merit: HC

Application though named as rectification but if tax imposed is not legitimate then it also touches upon the merit –…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

Cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 taken as per valuer report by reverse indexing of FMV

Cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 taken as per valuer report by reverse indexing of current FMV to be further…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

AO was directed to serve notice of hearing through physical mode upon assessee 

ITAT directed AO to serve notice of hearing both through electronic and physical mode upon the assessee  In a recent…

3 days ago