Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, EFPRO Engineer Private Limited, filed appeals for AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11 due to inadvertent mistakes in filing their income tax returns. These mistakes led to double taxation by wrongly reporting rental and interest income under different heads or as business income.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the mistakes were genuine and led to double taxation. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and directed the Assessing Officer to verify the assessee's claims and recalculate the tax liabilities.
Key Issues
Whether inadvertent mistakes in the return of income leading to double taxation warrant setting aside the lower authorities' orders and recalculation of tax liability.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI & HON’BLE SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA
The below mentioned appeals have been filed by the appellant assessee for AY-2009-10 and AY-2010-11 contesting the order of Ld. First Appellate Authority indicated Column-E, herein below:- S. Appeal AYs Appellant CIT(A) Order Details Respondent No. Nos. A B C D E F EFPRO Engineer DIN & Order No.ITBA / APL Private Limited, / S / 250 / 2024-25 / / Deputy No.D-8, Industrial 1071224555(1) dated 1 2009-10 Commissioner Chny / 2025 Estate, 14.12.2024 of Income Tax, Ambattur, Corporate Chennai-600 058. / DIN & Order No.ITBA / APL Circle-2(1) [PAN: / S / 250 / 2024-25 / Chny / 2024 Chennai 2 2010-11 AAACE1450H] 1071224493(1) dated 14.12.2024 & 39 /Chny/2025 2.0 The twin appeals for AY-2009-10 & AY 2010-11 belong to the same assessee containing almost identical facts, for the purposes of convenience were heard together and are being adjudicated by this common order.
Assessment Years: 2009-10 3.0 As regards the above appeal, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that during the said assessment year, the appellant had only the rental income to the tune of Rs. 13,18,829/- and interest income to the tune of Rs. 5,51,854/- as its source of income. It was submitted that while preparing statement of income, the rental income and interest income earned from the fixed deposits were credited to the profit & loss account. In the statement of total income, prepared for computing the tax liability under different heads of income in accordance with the Act, the above rental income and interest income aggregating to Rs. 14,09,875/- was considered under their respective heads and accordingly, the tax thereon was calculated. However, while filing the return of income electronically, the appellant company had wrongly filled up Row No. 14 of the Schedule BP as Rs.18,70,683/- being the aggregate of rental income and interest income earned during the assessment year under consideration and wrongly filled up Row No.23 of the Schedule BP as Rs.6,82,142/- instead of NIL. Similarly, the appellant had wrongly filled the Row No. 1(c) of the Schedule OS as Rs.13,18,829/- instead of NIL Page - 2 - of 6 & 39 /Chny/2025 thereby resulting in double taxation of the same amount. The Ld. Counsel drew our attention to the following inadvertent mistake committed by the assessee in its return of income. It was argued that due to the mistakes committed while filing the Return of income the total income of the appellant was shown as Rs.45,99,387/- instead of the actual income chargeable to tax to the tune of Rs.14,09,875/-. S.No. Mistake committed in the return of income Net Impact(Rs.) 1. Row No.14 of BP Schedule shown as 11,88,542 Rs.18,70,683/- instead of Rs. 6,82,141/- 2. Row No.23 of BP schedule shown as 6,82,142 Rs.6,82,142/- instead of Rs.NIL 3. Row No.1(c ) of OS schedule shown as 13,18,829 Rs.13,18,829/- instead of Rs.NIL Total(A) 31,89,513 4.0 The Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities.
, Assessment Years: 2010-11 5.0 As regards the above appeal, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted hat during the said assessment year, the appellant had only rental income to the tune of Rs.11,58,218/- and interest income to the tune of Rs.5,22,382/- as its sources of income. The appellant submitted that while preparing statement of income, the rental income and interest income earned from the fixed deposits were credited to the profit & loss account. In the statement of total income, prepared for computing the tax liability under different heads of income in Page - 3 - of 6 & 39 /Chny/2025 accordance with the Act, the above rental income and interest income aggregating to Rs.16,80,600/- was considered under their respective heads and accordingly, the tax thereon was calculated. However, while filing the return of income electronically, the appellant company had wrongly filled up Row No. 3 of the Schedule BP as Rs. NIL, instead of Rs.16,80,600/- being the aggregate of rental income and interest income earned during the assessment year under consideration resulting in a higher income from business at Rs.16,80,600/-. The appellant pointed out to the below mentioned mistakes in its return. It was submitted that due to the mistakes committed while filing the Return of income the total income of the appellant was shown as Rs.29,80.323/- instead of the actual income chargeable to tax to the tune of Rs.12,79,723/-.
S.No. Mistake committed in the return of income Net Impact(Rs.) 1. Row No.03 of BP schedule shown as 16,80,600 Rs.NIL instead of Rs.16,80,600/- TOTAL(A) 16,80,600 6.0 The Ld.DR relied upon the order of lower authorities.
7.0 We have heard rival submissions in the light of material available on records. Upon consideration of the submissions made by the Ld.AR, we are of the view that there appears to be a clear case of double addition in this case. The inadvertent mistake committed by the assessee cannot be a ground for collecting more taxes than those legally
Page - 4 - of 6 & 39 /Chny/2025 due from the taxpayer. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that ends of justice would be met if the matter is set aside to the file of Ld. assessing officer for limited verification of assessee’s claims and to recalculate the tax liabilities in accordance with law. Accordingly, we set aside the order of lower authorities and direct the Ld. assessing officer to examine the impugned mistakes pointed out by the assessee and recalculate the tax liabilities in accordance with law. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in are therefore allowed for statistical purposes.
7.1 As reportedly, facts in are identical to those in and therefore the decision in . Thus we direct the Ld. assessing officer to examine the impugned mistakes pointed out by the assessee and recalculate the tax liabilities in accordance with law. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are therefore allowed for statistical purposes.
Page - 5 - of 6 & 39 /Chny/2025 8.0 In the result, both the appeals vide & 39/Chny/ 2025 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 9th , April-2025 at Chennai.