GURUSWAMY TAMBARAM NARAYANAN,EAST TAMBARAM, CHENNAI vs. NON CORP. CIR 22(1)( TBM) CHEN, CHENNAI

Guruswamy Tambaram Narayanan, Income Tax Officer, Plot No.38, G1, Arvind Arcade Non-corp Circle-22(1), Apartment, Perialwar Street, Chennai. Chennai-600 059. [PAN: AOVPS2151R] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Mr.K.Sridhar C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 16.07.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 20.08.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & Order No.ITBA / APL / S / 250 / 2024-25 / 1074940775(1) dated 24.03.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), Addl/JCIT(A)-5, Kolkata, for the assessment year 2018-19. The reference to the word “Act” in this order hereinafter shall mean the Income Tax Act, 1961 as amended from time to time. 2.0 At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that its natural right to justice has been denied and that its appeal has been dismissed by the Ld.CIT(A) without condoning the delay. It was stated that the appellant had justified grounds for the delay. The appellant has through an affidavit indicated that he could not filed appeal in time as he was having personal health issues and was also travelling for business needs. The impugned default was purely unintentional. On the merits of the case, the appellant has argued that in its order u/s 143(1) dated 26.08.2019 CPC has added back items which were already included by the assessee in its return of income. It has been vehemently argued through a detailed paper book that it is a clear case of double taxation of income. The appellant accordingly requested for remission of the matter to the Ld.AO for limited verification of its facts and figures from records and taking a decision in accordance with law. 3.0 Per contra, the Ld.DR would like to place reliance upon the order of lower authorities. 4.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. We have noted that the only controversy seminal to the pleadings of the appellant is that the CPC has omitted to consider the computation of total income filed by the assessee and merely considered the figures disclosed in the profit and loss account. To illustrate, the appellant has stated that the addition of rental income of Rs.23,75,000/- is unwarranted. It has been stated that same was shown as business income in P&L account, however in the computation the amount was Page - 2 - of 4 deducted from business income and separately offered as income from house property by the appellant himself. The action of CPC in readding the same therefore tantamount to double taxation. Similar explanation has been given qua the interest on capital of Rs.24,80,088/-. The appellant has placed reliance a plethora of judicial pronouncements ruling that double taxation of income is not permissible. We find sufficient force in the arguments of the appellant assessee viz a viz the voluminous paper book filed by it. 5.0 Be that as it may be, we are of the view that the matter concerning adjustments made by the CPC have not been objectively and comprehensively analyzed by the lower authorities. We are of the view that ends of justice would be met if the assessee is given one last opportunity to present its case and file supporting evidences before the Ld.AO. The decision to remit it back to the Ld. AO is taken in view of the fact that an Assessing Officer is the fulcrum of assessment proceedings. He possess the first right and responsibilities to examine facts of a case before arriving at his decision qua determination of taxable income in a particular case. We have noted with respectful deference the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of TIN box 249 ITR 216 on the subject matter. Accordingly, the issue of addition made by the CPC which have been contested by the assessee through its grounds of appeal stands remitted back to the Ld. AO for limited verification and decision in Page - 3 - of 4 accordance with law. The Ld.AO shall ensure that there is no occasion for any double taxation of income. To the extent the order of lower authorities on this issue stands set aside. The Ld. AO shall give opportunities of being heard to the assesse and it shall be bounden upon the assesse to comply with the notices issued by the Ld. AO. Any non- compliance on the part of the assesse can be adversely viewed. The assessee is at liberty to produce all the evidences filed through its paper book before us including any other evidences deemed relevant in support of its claims before the Ld. AO during the verification proceedings. Accordingly, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are therefore allowed for statistical purposes. 6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced on 20th , Aug-2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (एबी टी. वर्की) (अधमताभ शुक्ला) (ABY T VARKEY) (AMITABH SHUKLA) न्याधयक सदस्य / Judicial Member लेखा सदस्य /Accountant Member चेन्नई/Chennai, धदनांक/Dated: 20th , Aug-2025. KB/- आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy to: 1. अिीिार्थी/Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुक्त/CIT - Chennai/Coimbatore/Madurai/Salem. 4. तिभागीय प्रतितिति/DR 5. गार्ड फाईि/GF

Page - 4 - of 4