IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-II NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.-4827/Del/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) Ashok Nanchahal, vs ACIT, 2474, Nalwa Street, Circle-38(1), Paharganj, New Delhi-110055. New Delhi PAN-ACKPN0993P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh.T.R.Talwar, Adv. Respondent by Ms. Anima Baranwal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 04.08.2016 Date of Pronouncement 21.10.2016 ORDER present appeal has been filed by assessee assailing correctness of order dated 19.05.2015 of CIT(A)-20, New Delhi pertaining to 2011-12 assessment year. Although various grounds have been raised by assessee in present appeal. However, at time of hearing, both parties addressed only Ground No. 2 which reads as under:- 2. In ignoring fact that Assessing Officer had wrongly added Rs.1,00,835/- to returned income of assessee on account of additional gross receipts from M/s Sindh Projects Masonary Dam Division, which was being contested in appeal before CIT(A), while same represented TDS on gross receipts of Rs.42,72,686/- received by assessee from said client and duly entered by him in his books of accounts and in his turnover. 2. Inviting attention to assessment order, it was submitted by Ld. AR that assessee declared income of Rs.30,83,170/- on 30/09/2011. assessee, it was submitted is engaged in business of Installations of POTACABIN made up of Fiber, Page 1 of 4 I.T.A .No.-4827/Del/2015 Plywood, wood and G.I. Sheets etc. Basically complete POTA CABIN also constructed and installed. 2.1. It was submitted that since at time of filing of return, assessee had not received full particulars of deduction made by M/s Sindh Projects Masonry amounting to Rs.1,00,835/- assessee filed revised computation of income in course of assessment proceedings. However, Assessing Officer being of view that it was not reflected in books of accounts of assessee added same to income of assessee. 3. In appeal before First Appellate Authority, assessee filed fresh evidences and submitted that necessary corrections had been carried out in computation of income. However, despite availability of Remand Report where Assessing Officer had accepted that receipt of Rs.42,72,686/- from M/s Sindh Projects Masonary were reflected therein CIT(A) did not appreciate this fact. 4. Inviting attention to Paper Book pages 4 and 5, it was submitted that it is copy of Form No.16A issued by M/s E.E.Sindh Project Masonry Dam Division Manikhada on 12.10.2012 where breakup of these specific amounts deducted is indicated. As result of this fact, it was his submission that return was revised by assessee by way of filing Revised Computation of income and these are reflected in said Revised Computation filed before AO. Attention was invited to fact that return was filed on 30.09.2011. In circumstances and in face of Remand Report where all these facts have been examined, addition on this account was not warranted on facts. Referring to order of CIT(A), it was his submission that Ld. CIT(A) misdirected herself Page 2 of 4 I.T.A .No.-4827/Del/2015 while trying to do reconciliation of 26AS with books of accounts of assessee and relying upon Computation of Income filed originally. 4.1. Ld. Sr. DR relying upon orders of tax authority submitted that assessee may need to demonstrate that return filed could be revised and whether Revised Computation was accepted by AO or not. However, she had no objection if facts are verified. 5. record shows that fresh evidence was filed before CIT(A) and reliance has been placed on Remand Report where facts are stated to be accepted however allegation of contradictory statements during assessment stage are relied upon. I find that issue needs to decided on basis of facts and evidences and not necessarily only by argument advanced before AO at assessment stage. As per record, assessee claims relief on basis of aforesaid Form 16A stated to be made available to assessee only on or after 12.10.2012 thus in original computation these could not be reflected. Since aspect has not been addressed and examined impugned order is set aside and ld.CIT(A) is directed to consider claim of assessee addressing specific document and incase CIT(A) is of view that said evidence is not relevant evidence for deciding issue then specific reasoning and conclusion it is made clear is required to be set out in writing after affording assessee reasonable opportunity of being heard. mere argument that said plea was not raised before AO, it is made clear should not be basis for rejecting facts and evidence in support of argument. Accordingly impugned order is set aside and issue is restored back to CIT(A) in terms of above direction. 6. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. order is pronounced in open court on 21st October, 2016. Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *Amit Kumar* Page 3 of 4 I.T.A .No.-4827/Del/2015 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI Page 4 of 4 Ashok Nanchahal v. ACIT, Circle-38(1), New Delhi