| COURT: | Bombay High Court |
| CORAM: | G. S. Kulkarni J, S. C. Dharmadhikari J |
| SECTION(S): | 143(3), 194-J |
| GENRE: | Domestic Tax |
| CATCH WORDS: | TDS reconciliation, Undisclosed Income |
| COUNSEL: | Percy Pardiwala |
| DATE: | March 18, 2014 (Date of pronouncement) |
| DATE: | May 17, 2016 (Date of publication) |
| AY: | 2006-07 |
| FILE: | Click here to download the file in pdf format |
| CITATION: | |
| Inability of the assessee, an Advocate, to reconcile the professional receipts with the TDS certificates and to give a detailed party-wise breakup of fees receipts does not mean that the difference can be assessed as undisclosed income | |
(i) The assessee challenged the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax in confirming the addition of Rs.47,37,000 made by Assessing Officer on account of non-reconciliation of professional receipts with TDS certificates. Insofar as that aspect is concerned, the Tribunal considered this submission of both sides and found that the assessee was engaged as an Advocate to argue the matters by what is popularly known as Advocates on record or instructing Advocates method, meaning thereby the client does not engage the assessee directly but a professional or the Advocate engaged by the client requests the assessee to argue the case. The brief is then taken as the counsel brief. That being the practice, the assessee gave an explanation that the breakup as desired cannot be given and with regard to all payments. It is pointed out that at times, assessee receives fees directly from the clients or from the instructing Advocates or Chartered Accountants if such professionals have collected the amounts from the clients.
(ii) Under these circumstances, the breakup as desired cannot be placed on record. An explanation which has been given by the assessee and accepted in the past has been now accepted by the Tribunal once again. Since it is accepted for the Assessment Year 2006-07, in the peculiar facts, in relation to the present assessee, we are of the view that this Appeal does not deserve to be entertained. It does not give rise to any substantial question of law.
think, the revenue going nuts. can revenue man prove how his heart is getting blood and how many pumping is done to keep yr heat working; if not satisfied our AO assessing that man might say your accounting is not right; so you get unaccounted blood where from you got if not accounted i would charge you under unaccounted blood transactions, as per IT rules guide lines if you do not provide due details; i will have book under 271(1)(c) for penalty for not disclosing in your roi u filed. it is some thing like in this case of AOR to provide details; what a maturity is there in the revenue to move the high court , soon it night go to SC! great india
The ITAT being the final fact finding authority at least it is not expected for it to observe like ‘ There may be
so many reasons such as low deduction of tax, non-deduction of tax, deduction
on account of reimbursement of expenses etc., for which the figure as per the
AIR may not tally with the income declared by the assessee’ and then exempt the assessee for providing a reco. whatever could be the reasons the onus is upon the assesseee to bring forth the same and certainly it cannot be expected upon the AO to draw a reco himself.
Else let the AO not ask for any reco such as this in every case and let CBDT make a note on this please and issue general instructions on reco/matching as this explanation could well hold true in every case.