ITAT Directs readjudication in respect of Mismatch between Form 26AS and Contract Receipts [Read Order]

Top Stories ITAT Directs readjudication in respect of Mismatch between Form 26AS and Contract Receipts [Read Order] ITAT orders a reexamination on the discrepancy between the contract receipts and Form 26AS. By Aparna. M – On December 10, 2023 7:00 pm – 2 mins read The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Raipur bench, directed readjudication in respect of the mismatch between 26AS and contract receipt of the assessee. Sandeep Surendran Nair, a mechanical contractor within the cement industry, filed his return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 on 29.11.2014, declaring an income of Rs.69,30,640.

The case was subsequently selected for scrutiny assessment under CASS. The Assessing Officer (AO), while framing the assessment order, made an addition due to the mismatch between 26AS and contract receipts. After being wronged, the assessee unsuccessfully appealed the case to the CIT (Appeals). During the proceedings, Makarand M. Joshi & Aniruddha Kavimandan, counsels for the assessee, argued that the mismatch of Rs.28,62,702 on account of short accounting of contract receipt by the assessee pertained to three parties.

The counsel further argued that the mismatch with Vasavadatta Cement was due to an advance of Rs.6 lacs received by the assessee, treated as a contract payment by the party. This discrepancy arose from an unexplained amount of Rs.10,00,750 credited by the said party in the assessee’s account on 31.03.2014. Regarding the disparity with Ultra Tech Cement (Birla White), the counsel explained that it was due to a provisional bill of Rs.11,47,016 credited to the assessee’s account by the party, with TDS deducted.

The mismatch resulted from UltraTech Cement Ltd. (Birla White) making provisions in its books against the services rendered by the assessee, following their own accounting system. The assessee’s counsel filed additional evidence as per Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963. Ram Tiwari, Counsel for Revenue, did not raise any objection to the admission of the additional evidence. After reviewing the facts and records, the two-member bench of Arun Khodpia (Accountant Member) and Ravish Sood (Judicial Member) restored the file to the AO, with a direction to verify the claim of the assessee, considering the additional evidence. The bench allowed the ground raised by the assessee.

Leave a Reply