Anil Ratanlal Bohora v. ACIT - Taxpublishers.in

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2023 TaxPub(DT) 362 (Pune-Trib) : (2023) 199 ITD 0596 IN THE ITAT, PUNE BENCH R.S. SYAL, V.P. & S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, J.M. Anil Ratanlal Bohora v. ACIT ITA No. 675/PUN/2022 19 January, 2023 Assessee by: Pramod Shingte Revenue by: Ramnath P. Murkunde ORDER *R.S. Syal, V.P.* This appeal by the assessee is directed against the Order dated 20-7-2022 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called the Act) in relation to the assessment year 2021-22. 2. The only issue pressed by the learned Authorized Representative is against not allowing credit for tax deducted at source amounting to Rs. 2,80,456. 3. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring total income of Rs. 8,42,68,650. An Intimation was issued under section 143(1) of the Act disallowing, inter alia, credit for tax deducted at source amounting to Rs. 2,80,456 on interest income. According to the Centralized Processing Centre, Form No. 26AS did not contain/contained partial amount of Tax Deducted at Sources with respect to TAN mentioned in schedule Tax Deducted at Sources 1/Tax Deducted at Sources 2/TCS. The assessee appealed against the Intimation issued under section 143(1) submitting before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that he gifted certain amount to his wife, out of which she made deposits with State Bank of India. As per Form No. 26AS, she earned total interest income of Rs. 39,26,260 with deduction of tax at source amounting to Rs. 2,94,474. Since the deposit was made out of the gift made by him, the assessee included proportionate interest income in his total income under section 64 and also claimed credit for proportionate tax deducted at source. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the provisions of rule 37BA(2) were not complied with and as a result, the assessee was not entitled to the credit for deduction of tax at source. This has brought the assessee before the Tribunal. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2023 TaxPub(DT) 362 (Pune-Trib) : (2023) 199 ITD 0596

IN THE ITAT, PUNE BENCH

R.S. SYAL, V.P. & S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, J.M.

Anil Ratanlal Bohora v. ACIT

ITA No. 675/PUN/2022

19 January, 2023

Assessee by: Pramod Shingte

Revenue by: Ramnath P. Murkunde

ORDER

R.S. Syal, V.P.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the Order dated 20-7-2022 passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called the Act) in relation to the assessment year 2021-22.

2. The only issue pressed by the learned Authorized Representative is against not allowing credit for tax deducted at source amounting to Rs. 2,80,456.

3. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return declaring total income of Rs. 8,42,68,650. An Intimation was issued under section 143(1) of the Act disallowing, inter alia, credit for tax deducted at source amounting to Rs. 2,80,456 on interest income. According to the Centralized Processing Centre, Form No. 26AS did not contain/contained partial amount of Tax Deducted at Sources with respect to TAN mentioned in schedule Tax Deducted at Sources 1/Tax Deducted at Sources 2/TCS. The assessee appealed against the Intimation issued under section 143(1) submitting before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) that he gifted certain amount to his wife, out of which she made deposits with State Bank of India. As per Form No. 26AS, she earned total interest income of Rs. 39,26,260 with deduction of tax at source amounting to Rs. 2,94,474. Since the deposit was made out of the gift made by him, the assessee included proportionate interest income in his total income under section 64 and also claimed credit for proportionate tax deducted at source. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the provisions of rule 37BA(2) were not complied with and as a result, the assessee was not entitled to the credit for deduction of tax at source. This has brought the assessee before the Tribunal.