NARENDRA HARJIVANDAS SANGHVI,MASJID BUNDER, MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 16(3)(1), MUMBAI, CHURCHGATE, MUMBAI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “J (SMC
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN () Assessment Year: 2021-22
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated
27.02.2025 passed by the Ld. Addl./Joint Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) – Kochi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year
2021-22, raising following grounds:
The Lr. Co affording suff the Order U/ as arbitrary a 2. The Lr. C.I the Appeal file 3. The Lr. C. grievance of t consisted of T from Governm Rs 6,87,761.0 taxed twice. 4. The unjustified an 2. Briefly stated f advocate by profess assessee filed retur income at Rs.9,26,98 was processed u/s 1 Act’) wherein the Ce total income at Rs Rs.19,44,032/-, res adjustment was prem Audit Report (Form 3 2.1 The assessee’s su said adjustment were also met with no re challenging the impu Narend ITA mmissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has e ficient opportunity to present the case befo s. 250 dated 27.02.2025 rendering the and ab-initio bad-in-law. I.T. (Appeal) has also grievously erred in ed on 21.11.2020 treating the same as in .I.T. (Appeal) has also erred in not exa the Appellant that the addition of Rs. 19 Tax Free income of Rs. 12,56,269.00 be ment Tax Free Bonds etc being wrongly 00 Taxable interest already disclosed in entire Order U/s. 250 is nd unlawful. facts of the case are that the sion. For the year under con rn of income on 27.01.2022 80/-. The return of income filed 43(1) of the Income-tax Act, 196 entral Processing Centre (CPC) s.28,71,010/- after making ulting in the enhanced tota mised on a perceived mismatch b 3CD) and the return of income. ubsequent attempts to seek rec e unsuccessful. The appeal befo lief. Aggrieved, the assessee is ugned order. dra Harjivandas Sanghvi 2 A No. 1755/MUM/2025 erred in not fore passing said Order dismissing nfructuous. amining the 9,44,030.00 ing Interest taxed and I.T.R. were otherwise Assessee is an nsideration, the declaring total by the assessee 61 (in short ‘the determined the adjustment for al income. The between the Tax ctification of the ore the ld CIT(A) s now before us
We have heard the relevant material of adjustment of Rs. the CPC. It is the co stems from an inadv Other Information – counsel submitted th the income earned f and loss account, recorded in balance s counsel submitted t disclosed to the com in turn were disclose 3.1 However, he subm 3CD uploaded on th amount not credited item of income was 16B. The relevant de ready reference:
1
Dividend
2
Interets FD
3
Interest NSS
4
Interest PPF
5
Interest SB A 6
Interest Scss
7
Interest Tax F
Narend
ITA rival submissions of the parti ls on record. The issue in dispu
.19,44,032/- made by the Asse ontention of the assessee that vertent clerical omission while
Clause 5 in the return of in hat assessee maintained books o from the profession is account whereas income from ‘other sheet under the head ‘capital ac that both the categories of th mputation income under approp d in the Income-tax return.
mitted that in the tax audit rep e income-tax system in relevan to the profit and loss account reported at Rs.19,44,032/- a etail of the tax audit report is Acc s
Free dra Harjivandas Sanghvi
3
A No. 1755/MUM/2025
ies and perused ute is in respect essing Officer of the adjustment filling Schedule ncome. The Ld.
of accounts and ed in the profit r sources’ was ccount’. The Ld.
he income were riate heads and port in Form No.
nt clause No. 16
being any other as per Schedule reproduced for Amount
18,067
3,86,059
1,42,070
1,46,812
77,265
86,372
9,67,387
8
Interest LIC
Total
3.1 In the return of information’ in clause of income not credite at Rs. Nil. But the s the assessee in ret
Rs.6,87,765/- which head ‘income from o of Rs.12,56,269/- wa
(PB 48). Thus, in declared in the return
3.2 The CPC, in p solely on the absen
Information” to make disclosure of the sam in the return. The C two principal reaso attributable to the as the CPC was justifi
143(1)(a). Second, th merged with the sub longer amenable to ch
Narend
ITA
1
f income under the relevant Sc e 5 inadvertently said amount o ed to the profit and loss accoun aid income of Rs.19,44,032/- w turn of income two parts. T was chargeable to tax was rep ther sources’ (PB 46) and the b as reported under the head ‘ex this manner the other incom n of income.
rocessing the return, appears nce of declaration under Clau e the adjustment, without verif me income under the relevant h
CIT(A), in upholding the adjust ons. First, that the error in ssessee and in the absence of a ed in making the adjustment hat the intimation under Sectio sequent rectification orders, an hallenge.
dra Harjivandas Sanghvi
4
A No. 1755/MUM/2025
1,20,000
19,44,032
hedule of ‘other of any other item nt was reported was reported by The amount of ported under the balance amount xempted income’
me was already to have relied use 5 of “Other fying the actual heads elsewhere tment, assigned reporting was a revised return, t under Section on 143(1) stood nd hence was no 3.3 We have peruse dispute. In our con scrutiny.
3.4 As regards the 143(1)(a)(ii), adjustme from information in question has other appropriate heads in limited to a technica case, Clause 5 of “Ot satisfy the rigour of “
in the return. The ₹19,44,032/- was in in part as exempt i mechanically, withou thereby resulting in d
3.5 Insofar as the concerned—that the orders—this, too, is under Section 154 a intimation unless sp
Section 246A(1)(a) a remains unaffected.
Narend
ITA ed the order of the Ld. CIT(A) nsidered view, both findings w first, it is no doubt true that ents can be made for incorrect c n the return. However, where rwise been disclosed correc n the return, and the perceiv l misreporting in a secondary s her Information”), such an adju
“incorrect claim apparent from e records demonstrate that t fact disclosed— in part as taxa income. The CPC appears to ut correlating disclosures across duplication of income.
e second limb of the CIT(A)’
e intimation merged with th s legally untenable. Rectificati are independent and do not eff pecifically revised. The right o against the intimation under dra Harjivandas Sanghvi
5
A No. 1755/MUM/2025
on the issue in warrant careful t under Section claims apparent the income in ctly under the ved omission is schedule (in this ustment may not any information the amount of able income and have proceeded s the schedules,
’s reasoning is he rectification ion proceedings face the original of appeal under Section 143(1)
6 In the circumst ₹19,44,032/- lacks mechanical and incom the matter involves schedules and heads the matter to the fi whether the sum of ₹ disclosed as exemp original return filed, pass a reasoned ord appeal of the asse purposes. 4. In the result, statistical purposes. Order pronoun (RAJ KUMAR C JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated: 10/07/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Narend ITA tances, we are of the view that legal sustainability and a mplete processing of the return. s questions of factual corre s of income, it would be approp file of the Assessing Officer, w ₹19,44,032/- was in fact duly o pt income) under appropriate and if so, delete the impugned der in accordance with law. T essee are accordingly allowed the appeal of the assessee ced in the open Court on 10/0 /- S CHAUHAN) (OM PRAK MEMBER ACCOUNTA dra Harjivandas Sanghvi 6 A No. 1755/MUM/2025 t the addition of arises from a . However, since elation between priate to restore who shall verify offered to tax (or heads in the adjustment and The grounds of d for statistical is allowed for 07/2025. KASH KANT) ANT MEMBER
Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
////
Narend
ITA ded to :
BY ORDER
(Assistant Re
ITAT, Mu dra Harjivandas Sanghvi
7
A No. 1755/MUM/2025
R, gistrar) umbai