MANISHA LAL,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, CPC BENGALURU, DCIT, CPC BENGALURU

ITA 5991/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 February 2025AY 2017-18Bench: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (Judicial Member), Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ( (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not fully consider the appellant's claim of consistently following the cash basis of accounting. The matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) to verify the returns of income for the current and subsequent years regarding the cash basis and TDS claims.

What were the facts?

The appellant disclosed brokerage income on a cash basis, but the CPC made an addition for a mismatch with the 26AS statement. The appellant's rectification petition was rejected. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, finding that the appellant failed to prove consistent adherence to the cash basis of accounting.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the CPC without properly considering the appellant's claim of consistently following the cash basis of accounting, especially concerning brokerage income and TDS.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1)(a),Section 154,Section 145

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai “SMC” Bench, Mumbai.

Before: Smt. Kavitha Rajagopal (JM) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (AM)

For Appellant: Ms. Yogita Patel, Shri P.D. Chougule
Pronounced: 24/02/2025

Per Omkareshwar Chidara (AM) :-

In the above captioned appeal, the following grounds of appeal were raised :-

1.

Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding adjustment of Rs.13,41,062 made by CPC, Bengaluru u/s. 143(l)(a) of the Act.

2.

Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding rejection of application made u/s. 154 of the Act

3.

Id. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on fact in upholding addition of Rs. 13,41,062 duly offered for taxation in subsequent years on cash basis, ignoring evidences and explanation placed on record

2.

In this case, the CPC made an addition of Rs. 13,41,062/- stating that there is a mismatch in income as appearing in 26AS statement as agaisnt income offered in the income tax return which was processed under

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →