Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, G BENCH, MUMBAI
order : 23.02.2023 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:
1. 1. By way of the present appeal the Appellant has challenged the order, dated 26.08.2019, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-53, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as „the CIT(A)‟] for the Assessment Year 2012-13, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 31.03.2015, passed under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟).
2. The appeal was accompanied by application seeking condonation of delay of 743 days in filing the appeal. A copy of the order passed by the CIT(A), dated 26.08.2019, was served Assessment Year: 2012-13 upon the Appellant on 19.09.2019. Mr. Jayesh Vinodkumar Tanna, partner of the Appellant, was a severe diabetic patient suffering from high blood pressure and hypertension. During the month of November 2019, he was hospitalized from 11.11.2019 to 15.11.2019 and was advised complete bed rest thereafter. Though, the Chartered Accountant engaged by the Appellant at the relevant time was instructed to file the appeal against the order passed by CIT(A), no appeal was filed. In March, 2020, lockdown was imposed on account of Covid Pandemic and therefore, the office of the Appellant was shut down. In April, 2021, Mr. Jayesh Kumar Tanna suffer from Covid and was advised to be in isolation. Thereafter, in July 2021, when Mr. Jayesh Kumar Tanna recovered, he asked his staff to request the aforesaid Chartered Accountant to provide complete set of document filed in appeal before the CIT(A). However, in October, 2021, Mr. Jayesh Vinodkuamar Tanna, was hospitalized for kidney stone operation. In the above facts and circumstances, the Appellant filed appeal for the Assessment Year 2012-13 on 30.11.2021. Excluding the Covid period, there was a delay of 183 days in filing the present appeal. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant relied upon common order, dated 15.07.2022, passed by the Tribunal in appeal filed by the Appellant for the Assessment Year 2014-15 [ITA No. 2190/Mum/2021] wherein, in the identical facts and circumstances, delay of in filing the appeal was condoned. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we hold that the Appellant was prevented by reasonable cause from presenting the appeal within limitation. The application for seeking condonation of delay in filing the present appeal is, therefore, allowed. Assessment Year: 2012-13 3. We now proceed to adjudicate the grounds raised on merits. The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal: “
1. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant‟s case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs, 27,43,542/- being 12.5% of the sale proceeds of Flats and Shops sold during the year by considering the same as estimated business income from the project Gopal Niwas.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the Appellant‟s case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 6,50,000/- being labour charges income on IMT machine owned by the appellant firm by considering the same as undisclosed income.”
4. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the Appellant filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13 on 29.09.2012 declaring loss of INR 2,54,42,454/-. The case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act vide order, dated 31.03.2015, after making, inter alia, addition of INR 6,50,000/- on account machine hire income and addition of INR 27,43,542/- being net profit arising from sale of stock of the project „Gopal Niwas‟ computed at the rate of 12.5% of the turnover of 2,19,48,340/- [INR 2,21,48,340/- minus INR 2,00,000/-].
Being aggrieved, the Appellant carried the issues in appeal before the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) declined to grant any relief on the aforesaid issues. Therefore, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal raising grounds reproduced in paragraph 2 above which have taken up hereinafter in seriatim. Ground No. 1 6. Ground No. 1 is directed against the addition of INR 27,43,542/- 3 Assessment Year: 2012-13 pertain to sale of stock being shops and flats in project „Gopal Niwas‟. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant submitted that Assessing Officer/CIT(A) had erred in estimating profit at the rate of 12.5% sale proceeds without rejecting the books of accounts. He, however, stated under instructions that the Appellant does not wish to pursue this ground of appeal
. Therefore, Ground No. 1 raised by the Appellant is dismissed as being not pressed. Ground No. 2
7. During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the Appellant had received labour charges income in respect of INT machines owned by the Appellant. From the Income Tax System (ITS) Data it was clear to the Assessing Officer that the Appellant had undertaken 13 transactions whereas income pertaining to 12 transactions was offered to tax in the return of income for the Assessment Year 2012-13. The Assessing Officer concluded that the Appellant had not disclosed receipts of machine hire charges amounting to INR 7,16,950/- (including service tax of INR 66,950/-). Accordingly, the Assessing Officer made an addition of INR 6,50,000/- (excluding service tax of INR 66,950/-) in the hands of the Appellant. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Appellant on this issue holding that while the Appellant had not offered to tax the aforesaid income reflected in entry number 13 in Form 26AS, the corresponding credit of tax deducted at source amounting to INR 1,86,407/- was claimed by the Appellant.
8. We have considered the rival submission. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and after perusing the record, we hold that the 13th entry reflected in the 26AS is a Assessment Year: 2012-13 duplicate entry for the Assessment Year 2012-13. Two entries have been made for the month of March, 2013. Therefore, the duplicate income as well as the corresponding duplicate tax credit pertaining to the aforesaid income should be excluded while computing taxable income of the Appellant for the Assessment Year 2012-13. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to compute the taxable income after excluding the 13th entry reflected in Form 26AS and compute the amount of tax payable after granting credit of tax deducted at source corresponding to 12 entries and by excluding tax credit pertaining to the 13th entry. With the aforesaid directions, Ground No. 2 raise by the Appellant is allowed.
In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 23.02.2023.