KASTURI IRON & MINERALS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 34/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 March 2023AY 2019-20203 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's contention of a typographical error in the audit report and consider the revised report.

What were the facts?

The assessee offered income of Rs. 25,30,794/- as deemed income u/s 115JB, but the CPC assessed it at Rs. 44,27,533/-. The assessee claimed this was due to a typographical error in the audit report.

What were the issues?

Whether the CPC's adjustment to the deemed income was justified, considering the assessee's claim of a typographical error in the audit report.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 115JB,Section 143(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg

आदेश / ORDER The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 14.11.2022 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The sole issue involved in this appeal is relating to the adjustment made by the CPC while processing the return of the assessee u/s 143(1) of the Act. 3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has brought my attention to Serial No.19 of the intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act to submit that the assessee had offered the income of Rs.25,30,794/- as deemed income u/s 115JB of the Act, whereas, the CPC has assessed the income at Assessment Year: 2019-20 Kasturi Iron & Minerals Pvt. Ltd Rs.44,27,533/-. The ld. Counsel, in this respect, has submit that there was a typographical error in the audit report furnished along with the return of income from where the CPC has revised the aforesaid figure. The ld. Counsel has submitted that the assessee may be given an opportunity to explain the aforesaid typographical error in the audit report before the Assessing Officer.

4.

The ld. DR has not objected to the same.

5.

In view of above, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the Assessing Officer is directed to verify the above contention of the assessee, go through the revised tax audit report and will also consider the contention of the assessee that there is some typographical error in the audit report and thereafter will take the right figure into account for determining the taxable income of the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 115JB

All 5,494 judgments and leading authorities on Section 115JB →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →