VISHESH HEMENDRA PAREKH,MUMBAI vs. DCIT,CPC,BANGALORE & CIR- 8(2)(1) MUMBAI & CIR- 17(1) , MUMBAI

The brief facts are that the assessee is a service agent and earned income from business and profession, capital gain and income from other sources. The assessee is said to be a partner in a partnership firm by name M/s. Industrial and Commercial Enterprises

Aggrieved by this, the assessee was in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on the ground that the assessee has earned remuneration from the partnership firm which was treated as income from business and profession and not income from salary. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal on the ground that upon perusal of ITR, 26AS, TAR and the intimation order shows difference of amount reflected in 26AS and amount shown in the ITR and that the assessee should have taken up the issue with the deductor to amend/modify the information in 26AS statement and the assessee ought to have filed a fresh rectification application within the prescribed time limit to the CPC/Assessing Officer (A.O. for short), thereby rejecting the claim of the assessee.

Aggrieved by this, the assessee is in appeal before us as against the order of the ld. CIT(A).

The ld. Authorized Representative (AR for short) of the assessee contended that the assessee did not earn any income from salary and had only received income from (A.Y. 2017-18) Vishesh Hemendra Parekh vs. DCIT business and profession and that there was a technical error by CPC, Bangalore in making the addition of the impugned amount as ‘income from salary’ thereby raising a demand. The ld. AR contended that the assessee’s claim for refund amounting to Rs.1,50,660/- is to be allowed as remuneration received from the partnership firm which was already treated as ‘income from business and profession’. The ld. AR further contended that the assessee has been taxed the same income twice and that it was a mistake apparent from the record, which needs to be rectified u/s.154 of the Act.

The ld. Departmental Representative (ld. DR for short), on the other hand, relied on the decision of the ld. CIT(A).

Having heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record, we are of the considered view that the assessee has earned income from business and profession by rendering services, remuneration and exempt share profit, capital gains from sale of mutual fund and interest and dividend income. It is evident that the assessee has not received any income from salary amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- and that while processing the return of income, the impugned income of Rs.6,00,000/- was added inadvertently as ‘salary income’. The ld. CIT(A) has observed that ITR, 26AS and other relevant records show that the assessee has earned salary income amounting to Rs.6,00,000/- from M/s. Industrial and Commercial Enterprises. It is further observed that the assessee has furnished the relevant details to substantiate his claim and had referred to page nos. 30, 55 and 60 of the paper book filed by the assessee to collaborate the fact that the impugned amount has already been declared by the assessee as ‘remuneration from partnership firm’ and share of profit claimed exempt. The assessee

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.