MRS. BABU SHEENY,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NCW-6(1), CHENNAI

Before the ld. Addl/JCIT(A), the assessee stated that this amount of Rs.6,35,286/- which has been shown in column 16(d) of Form 3CD certified by the CA in his tax audit report have already been offered as income from house property and other source and hence, the same has been shown as “income not credited to P&L account”. Therefore, addition made by the CPC, Bangalore on this amount is erroneous and hence, prayed for deleting the same. After perusal of the submissions made by the assessee, the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee vide his order dated 28.10.2024 stating that no evidence has been filed by the assessee. Aggrieved by the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) order, the assessee is before us.

The ld.AR for the assessee stated that the assessee’s books of accounts have been audited by CA and return has :-4-: ITA. No: 3206/Chny/2024 been filed along with tax audit report. The ld.AR filed a copy of the income tax return acknowledgment for the assessment year 2021-22 along with detailed computation of income showing the details of income from business and also income from house property and income from other source. The ld.AR also filed the tax audit report in Form 3CA & 3CD duly certified by the CA. The ld.AR took us through the column 16(d), wherein the auditor has mentioned ‘amounts not credited to P&L account being any other item of income’ Rent received - Rs.5,74,584/- SB bank interest – Rs.29,686/- Chit Kasar - Rs.25,353/- Dividend - Rs.5,606/- FDR Interest - Rs.5/- Income tax refund int - Rs.52/-

Further, the above said item wise income had been declared under income from house property to the extent of Rs.5,74,584/- and Rs.60,702/- under the head income from other source. Further, the ld.AR stated that since the income of Rs.6,85,286/- has already been offered as income in the income tax returns filed by the assessee, the adjustment made by the CPC, Bangalore and confirmed by the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) amounts to double taxation of the same and hence, prayed for :-5-: ITA. No: 3206/Chny/2024 deleting the same by setting aside the order of the ld. Addl/JCIT(A).

Per contra, the ld.Sr.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.

We have heard both the parties, perused materials available on record and gone through orders of the authorities below. It is an admitted fact that the assessee has filed return of income for the assessment year 2022-23 along with the tax audit report duly certified by the CA by declaring the income from house property, business and other source. On perusal of tax audit report column 16(d) “amount not credited to the P&L account being any other item of income” the CA has mentioned Rs.6,85,286/- by way of rent received and other income earned by the assessee during the assessment year. The CPC, Bangalore in its intimation u/s. 143(1)(a) has made an addition of the same under the head business even though these items have already been considered and offered to tax under the head income from house property and income from other sources. Therefore, the CPC, Bangalore as well as the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) have erred in making an addition of :-6-: ITA. No: 3206/Chny/2024 Rs.6,85,286/- to the returned income of the assessee. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, addition confirmed by the ld. Addl/JCIT(A) is not sustainable and hence, we are inclined to delete the same by setting aside the order of the ld. Addl/JCIT(A)and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the same by accepting the returned income of the assessee.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the court on 21st February, 2025 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जॉज� जॉज� के) (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (S. R. RAGHUNATHA) (GEORGE GEORGE K) लेखा सद�/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER उपा�� /VICE PRESIDENT चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 21st February, 2025 JPV आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��थ�/Respondent 3.आयकर आयु�/CIT – Chennai 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF