KASTURI IRON & MINERALS PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.D.I.T., CPC, BENGALURU, BENGALURU
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?
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.
The ld. DR has not objected to the same.
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.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 115JB
- Azure Knowledge Corporation Private… vs The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), AhmedabadITA 2013/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Digjam Limited, Jamnagar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 349/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Braithwaite & Co. Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 1(1), KolkataITA 1076/KOL/2026[2021-2022]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2021-2022
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 964/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Vejalpur… vs Vijay M. Mistry Construction Private…ITA 963/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed6 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026