Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMARJIT SINGH & MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL
ORDER Per Amarjit Singh (AM): This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Mumbai for the assessment year 2015-16.
The assessee has raised the following ground of appeal: “1.The learned Assessing Officer has erred in considering the bank interest income of Rs.55,69,689/- as against the actual amount of Rs.5,59,689/- and thereby made an addition of Rs.50,10,000/-. The amount of Rs.55,69,689/- was inadvertently entered in the return of income as against the actual amount of Rs.5,59,689/- was inadvertently entered in the return of income as against the actual amount of Rs.5,59,689/-. The learned A.O. made the addition and the same was upheld by the learned CIT(A), on the ground that there was a delay in filing the appeal before him.”
The facts in brief being that assessee had filed return of income on 25/09/2015 declaring total income at Rs.49,450/-. The case of the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Act by the ACIT-CPC on 21/10/2016.
In the return of income, the assessee has inadvertently shown interest income from bank to the amount of Rs.55,69,689/- as against the actual amount of interest income received from the bank of Rs.5,59,689/-. Therefore, the Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs.50,10,000/-. Aggrieved, assessee took up the matter before the Ld.CIT(A)-1, Mumbai. During the course of appellate proceedings before him, the authorised representative of the assessee has made submission that assessee has wrongly declared income received from bank at Rs.55,69,689/- due to a typographical error whereas the actual interest income received was Rs.5,59,689/- only. In this regard, the Ld. CIT(A) stated that AR of the assessee did not seek to file any revised ground of appeal before him, therefore, the appeal was dismissed.
During the course of appellate proceedings before us, the Ld.Counsel submitted that during the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A) assessee has filed the relevant copies of supporting documents placed in the paper book from pages 1 to 18 in support of their explanation that amount of interest income was inadvertently entered in the return of income. The Ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issue on merit and has not considered the relevant document and details placed in the paper book.
On the other hand, ld.DR supported the orders of lower authorities.
Heard both sides and perused material on record. Without reiterating the facts as elaborated above, it is undisputed fact that assessee has inadvertently entered an amount of Rs.55,69,689/- as interest income received from the bank as against the only amount of interest income of Rs.5,59,689/-. During the course of appellate proceedings before the ld.CIT(A),the assessee has filed copies of acknowledgement of return of income, copy of computation of income, copy of P&L account, copy of ledger account of interest income and copies of form 26AS reflecting the amount of Rs.5,59,689/- received as interest from Bank of India. However, the Ld.CIT(A has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without considering the relevant supporting documents furnished by the assessee. Section 250(6) of the I.T. Act contemplates that Ld.CIT(A) would determine points in dispute and he record reason in support of his conclusion. However, in the case of the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) has failed to determine those points in respect of the supporting evidences and details furnished by the assessee as placed in the paper book. Therefore, in the light of the above facts and material on record, we do consider it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of the Ld.CIT(A) in deciding de novo after taking into consideration the materials placed by the assessee in the paper book and after providing due opportunity to the assessee. Accodingly, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed, for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on the 29th day of March, 2022.