JAI KUMAR KANKARIA(HUF),KOLKATA vs. ACIT, CIR. 33, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM Jai Kumar Kankaria (HUF) 6, Perkebunan Kankaria, Jalan Rusel Ubit, Kolkata, Benggala Barat-700071 Vs. ACIT, Cir. 33 Aayakar Bhawan P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700069 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AADHJ0930P
Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax
(Appeals),
ADDL/JCIT(A)-1,
Visakhapatnam (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated
18.01.2024 for the AY 2018-19. 2. The issue raised in ground no.1 is general in nature and needs no specific adjudication.
3. The issue raised in ground no.2, is against the order of ld. CIT (A) upholding the order passed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), thereby confirming the adjustment of ₹27,11,790/- made by the AO (CPC).
Jai Kumar Kankaria (HUF); 2018-19
The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 29.09.2018, declaring total income at ₹1,08,56,910/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act vide order dated 13.12.2019, assessing the income at ₹1,35,68,700/-, thereby making an addition of ₹27,11,790/-. The ld. AO /CPC, while processing the return of income has committed a mistake by taking the capital gain amounting to ₹1,03,28,496/- shown in the profit and loss account , which was also considered by the assessee in the computation of income under the head capital gain after claiming the benefit of indexation. The said action of the AO/CPC has resulted in increase in the assessed income by ₹27,11,790/-. 5. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) affirmed the order of the ld. AO by mis-appreciating the facts of the assessee and justified the addition made by the AO/ CPC. 6. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee has shown income from capital gain amounting to ₹1,03,28,496/- as profit and loss account which was apparently before claiming the indexation benefit. We further note that the assessee while filing the return income assessee has duly taken the said amount of capital gain into account and computed the capital gain accordingly, after taking benefit of indexed cost. However, the ld. AO/ CPC ignored all these facts and picked up these figures without indexation which has resulted in excess amount of income assessed to the tune of ₹27,11,790/-, which in our opinion is wrong and against the facts on record. Even the ld. CIT (A) overlooked the correct facts and figures presented by the assessee. Thus we find merit in the contention of the assessee that the said adjustment made by the AO/ CPC was not a prima facie adjustment to be made u/s 143(1) of Jai Kumar Kankaria (HUF); 2018-19
the Act as the issue involved/ required a lot of debate/ discussion and facts to be clarified and therefore, cannot be said to be a prima facie adjustment. In our opinion, if the AO/ CPC had any issue with regard to said capital gain the proper course would have been made to fix the scrutiny and to examine the amount of capital gain accordingly.
Considering these facts and circumstances, we are inclined to quash the intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act as invalid on the ground that the AO / CPC has no such juri iction to make the adjustment of ₹27,11,790/-. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 06.05.2025. (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY)
(RAJESH KUMAR)
(JUDICIAL MEMBER)
(ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
Kolkata, Dated: 06.05.2025
Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. BY ORDER,//
Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst.