Arush Gupta Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
The assessee appealed against the order dated 25.06.2025 passed by the CIT(A)/NFAC under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which had confirmed the assessment order dated 16.03.2024. The assessee had filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2022-23 on 30.11.2022 declaring total income of Rs.1,09,61,530, which was processed under Section 143(1). The case was selected for scrutiny, and after notices under Section 142(1) and a show cause notice dated 25.01.2024, the Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.2,90,375 on account of a difference in GST returns. The AO observed that GST records reflected consultancy receipts of Rs.45,40,750, whereas the assessee had offered 50% of consultancy receipts of Rs.39,60,000 under Section 44ADA based on Form 26AS. Treating Rs.45,40,750 as the turnover, the AO computed professional income at Rs.22,70,375 and added the difference of Rs.2,90,375 to the returned income.
Before the CIT(A), the assessee contended that the AO had incorrectly adopted GST turnover of Rs.45,40,750 instead of Rs.42,01,750 as reflected in the annual GSTR-1 for FY 2021-22. It was also argued that the amount of Rs.42,01,750 comprised consultancy receipts of Rs.39,60,000 and rental income of Rs.2,41,750, both reported in GSTR-3B, and that the AO had failed to consider the rental income while comparing GST turnover with consultancy receipts. The CIT(A) observed that similar submissions and copies of GSTR-1 and GSTR-3B had already been furnished before the AO. Referring to information received through Insight Data based on GST returns of other parties, the CIT(A) noted that the AO had found consultancy payments of Rs.45,40,750 from 12 parties, including Rs.44,77,500 from OKAYA Power Pvt. Ltd. and Rs.63,250 from 11 other parties. The CIT(A) held that the assessee had not furnished evidence, including certificates from the 12 parties, to rebut the AO’s findings and therefore upheld the addition.
