NAIYER SULTAN,KOLKATA vs. ADIT, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that Income-tax Authorities should not burden assessees with high taxes due to bona fide mistakes and should assist in assessing correct income. The CIT(A) failed to exercise jurisdiction to assess the true income.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed their return of income reflecting net receipts from job work. The CPC processed the return under Section 143(1) and made a summary adjustment, treating the gross receipts as income instead of net receipts. The CIT(A) rejected the assessee's claim, stating that expenses were not claimed under Section 57.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in not considering the assessee's claim for net receipts and admissible deductions when the CPC made a summary adjustment based on gross receipts.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B (SMC
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG, HON’BLE & DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal is directed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter the “ld. CIT(A)”) dated 16/02/2023, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act’), for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The sole issue taken by the assessee in this appeal relates to the summary adjustment made by the CPC while processing the return of income u/s 143(1) of the Act and thereby taking the gross receipts of the assessee from job work at Rs.17,01,701/- as income of the assessee instead of net receipts of Rs.1,32,144/- as reflected in the return of income.
Being aggrieved by the said adjustment made by the CPC assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A). However, ld. CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee observing that the assessee in the return of income did not claim the expenses u/s 57 of the Act. That the assessee straight away claimed the net amount in the return of income whereas the assessee was Assessment Year: 2017-19 Naiyer Sultan supposed to firstly mention the gross income and thereafter the assessee was supposed to claim the expenditure. Because of the said reason, the CPC rightly booked up the gross receipts as income of the assessee.
We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record.
It has been held time and again that the Income-tax Authorities should charge legitimate taxes from the assessees. The assessees should not be burdened with high taxes because of their bona fide mistakes. Rather it is the duty of the Income-tax Authorities to help the assessees for the assessment of their correct income. In our view, if there was any bona fide mistake or error that occurred while filing of the online return and the CPC had made certain adjustments, the duty was cast upon the CIT(A) to have looked into the matter and assessed the correct income of the assessee. The powers of the CIT(A) are co-terminus with that of the Assessing Officer and in this case, the ld. CIT(A) has failed to exercise the jurisdiction to assess the true and real income of the assessee. In view of this, the matter is restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction that the ld. CIT(A) irrespective of any error or indiscrepancies in the Form of the return, would consider the claim of the assessee on merits and allow the assessee the admissible deduction and will assess the correct income of the assessee.
With the above observations, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Court on 23rd May, 2023 at Kolkata. (Manish Borad) Judicial Member Kolkata, Dated 23/05/2023 *SC SrPs Assessment Year: 2017-19 Naiyer Sultan आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant
""यथ" / The Respondent 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned Pr. CIT 4. आयकर आयु" अपील / The CIT(A)- ( ) 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध अिधकरण अपीलीय आयकर कोलकाता/DR,ITAT, Kolkata, , , 6. गाड" फाईल /Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
More judgments on Section 57
- Dattatraya Prakash Wankar, Solapur vs ITO WD-2(3), SolapurITA 2210/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed5 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Aurelia Housing Coperative Society Ltd… vs I.T.O., Ward - 49(4), KolkataITA 2198/KOL/2026[2017-2018]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2017-2018
- Ramkrishna Bajaj Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle…ITA 66/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Zidni Ilma Charitable Trust, Vadodara vs The ITO, Ward-Exemp, VadodaraITA 914/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2018-19
- Zidni Ilma Charitable Trust, Vadodara vs The ITO, Ward-Exemp, VadodaraITA 913/AHD/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed28 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026