BARUN KUMAR PAUL,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CC 3(2),, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 245/KOL/2026Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 July 2026AY 2017-201817 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while adjustments based on Form 26AS are permissible, the assessee should be allowed to prove co-ownership and the inclusion of their shares in other co-owners' returns. The matter was remanded for verification of these claims.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared a lower rental income from a jointly owned property than what was reflected in Form 26AS. The CPC processed the return under Section 143(1) and added the difference to the assessee's income. The CIT(A) upheld the addition but allowed full TDS credit.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire rental income reflected in Form 26AS could be added to the assessee's income when the property was jointly owned, and whether the assessee had provided sufficient evidence of co-ownership and declaration of shares by other co-owners.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 194-I,Section 194C,Section 199

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH AT KOLKATA

Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH AT KOLKATA Before SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No(s). 245/KOL/2026 Assessment Year(s) 2017-18 Barun Kumar Paul DCIT, CC-3(2), Kolkata/ Vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN: AFLPP6565P Appearances: Assessee represented by : S.K. Tulsiyan, Advocate. Department represented by : Sanjib Kumar Paul, Addl. Sr. DR. Date of concluding the hearing : 30.06.2026 Date of pronouncing the order : 10.07.2026 ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 21, Kolkata [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2017-18 dated 26.11.2025. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 17,94,170/- under the head 'Income from House Property' without appreciating the facts that, the deduction was otherwise allowable as per the provision of Sec. 143(1)(a). 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order u/s.250 without considering the facts of the case and without appreciating the circumstances of the case in the perspective of the precedence followed by the assessee-appellant in the earlier years.

5.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. The Ld. AR submitted that the property was jointly owned by three co-owners and the other two co-owners had given a power of attorney in favour of the assessee, a copy of which has been filed alongwith the written submissions filed before us. It was submitted that the rent amount received on which TDS was made was distributed among the three co-owners which had been declared in the returns filed by the other two co-owners and the assessee was only liable to share of the rent falling to his credit being one-third of the total amount received. The written submissions filed in this regard are extracted as under:

“Your honour, This appeal is filed against the appellate order dated 26.11.2025 passed by the Ld. C.I.T.(A), Kolkata-21 for the A.Y. 2017-18 challenging the scope of addition of Rs.17,94,170/- on account of entire income from jointly owned house property with two other co-sharers in the hands of the assessee and disallowance of TDS credit on such income while processing the ROI vide Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 13/02/2020. 2. The appellant, an individual, filed his original ROI for the A.Y. 2017-18 under appeal on 23/03/2018 declaring a total income of Rs.64,02,361/-, which, inter alia, included income from house property at Rs.12,64,408/-. While processing the said ROI, CPC issued communication by pointing out the following arithmetical error u/s 143(1)(a)(i) of the Act in the Schedule-HP (concerning rental income from co-owned house property at Berhampore, Murshidabad given to Central Excise & Custom Dept.) Error Description Amount in Amount as Variance ITR computed (Rs.) In Schedule-HP, though the co- 6,94,297 6,94,506 209 owned flag is YES, the total percentage of co-owners has not been fully furnished. The said ROI was thereafter processed vide Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 04.02.2019 on a total income of Rs.69,11,506/- and thereby enhancing

Adjustment made in income from house property was beyond prima facie adjustment 9. In this context it is also submitted that even otherwise also the adjustments made in the house property income in the impugned Intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act dated 13/02/2020 issued in processing the revised ROI filed on 31/03/2019 is outside the scope of prima facie adjustment. Nature of adjustments permissible u/s 143(1) of the Act are to the following extent : "(a) the total income or loss shall be computed after making the following adjustments, namely:- (i) Any arithmetical error in the return; (ii) An incorrect claim, if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return; (iii) Disallowance of loss claimed, if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond the due date specified under sub- section (1) of section 139; (iv) Disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return; (v) Disallowance of deduction claimed under section 10AA or under any of the provisions of Chapter VI-A under the heading "C-Deductions in respect of certain incomes" if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; Provided that no such adjustments shall be made unless an intimation is given to the assessee of such adjustments either in writing or in electronic mode." 9.1. On reading of the above, section 143(1) of the Act does not contain any provision for any adjustment in respect of any claim made by the assessee in the ROI, except making arithmetical calculation of tax, penalty or interest payable on the basis of claims made by the assessee. Determination of any question about the liability otherwise has to be computed as per the ROI submitted by the assessee, after accepting all the claims to the deduction, allowance or the existence of the liability and any deviation required recourse to regular assessment, which could be the subject matter of regular appeal. In

6.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as well as the detailed written submissions filed before us in which the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A) and the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) have been summarised in paras 4 to 5.2. The assessee had shown in the return of income an amount which was lower than that being reflected in Form No. 26AS while the credit for entire TDS was being claimed, which is stated to be mutually adjusted among the three

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata

More judgments on Section 194-I

All 307 judgments and leading authorities on Section 194-I →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →