M/S. DEUTSCHLAND TRANSFORMERS PVT. LTD.,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

ITA 775/CHNY/2020Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 September 2022AY 2018-193 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee correctly adjusted income and expenditure from business income and offered the net amount under Income from House Property, meaning there was no actual variance. The adjustment made by the CPC was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee offered income from House Property, including a lease premium paid, which was adjusted from business income. The CPC, however, enhanced business income by the amount of the lease premium, creating a variance.

What were the issues?

Whether the adjustment made by the CPC under Section 143(1) for lease premium was justified when the net effect was accounted for under Income from House Property.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C/SMC” BENCH, CHENNAI

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjunraj (CA) for Shri S. Sridhar, Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) - Ld. DR

For Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT) - Ld. DR

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai dated 04.09.2020 in the matter of an intimation issued by Centralized Processing Center, Bangalore u/s 143(1) of the Act on 02.10.2019. In the intimation, the ‘business income’ has been enhanced by Rs.15.53 Lacs.

2 - 2. The Ld. AR drew attention to the computation of income and explained that the assessee earned income from House Property for Rs.77 Lacs which was credited in the Profit & Loss Account. The assessee paid lease premium of Rs.15.53 Lacs for this property which was debited to Profit & Loss Account. Both these items were removed from ‘Business Income’ and net of the two i.e., Rs.61.47 Lacs was offered as Income from House Property. However, CPC computed variance of Rs.15.53 Lacs and enhanced the business income to that extent. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that this fact may be verified by lower authorities.

Upon perusal of impugned order, it could be seen that Ld. CIT(A), without appreciating the actual facts leading to alleged variance, merely held that such an adjustment could have been made u/s 143(1)(a). Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before me.

Upon perusal of material on record, I find strength in the argument of Ld. AR. It could be seen that the assessee has removed the component of income as well as expenditure from ‘business income’ and offered the net of the two under Income from House Property. Therefore, there is no variance as alleged. This being so, the impugned adjustment as made by CPC is not sustainable on merits. I order so.

The Ld. AR has also submitted that the case for this year was picked up for scrutiny wherein the rental income has been assessed by Ld. AO as ‘business income’. The appeal against the same is stated to be pending before Ld. CIT(A). Be that as the case may be, those are separate proceedings and are not the subject matter of this appeal. So far as the adjustment u/s 143(1) is concerned, the same is not sustainable in law. The CPC is directed to delete the demand raised against the assessee u/s 143(1) on this count.

The appeal stand allowed.

Order pronounced on 13th September, 2022.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →