Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee failed to file its Return of Income for AY 2017-18. A notice under Section 148 was issued, and the assessee filed a return declaring income of Rs. 5,99,806. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 1,00,034, considering it as undisclosed interest income from Andhra Bank.
Held
The Tribunal found that the difference between the total interest received and the disclosed interest income was Rs. 18,569. The assessee's AR admitted that this amount was inadvertently not offered for taxation. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was partly confirmed.
Key Issues
Whether the addition of Rs. 1,00,034 made by the AO on account of alleged undisclosed interest income is sustainable, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
139(1), 148, 144B, 142(1), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE
Before: DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Jai and Aditya Kelkar Eye Care V Circle-7, and Laser Institute Pvt. Ltd., s Pune. S.No.1219, Flat No.8, Ynis Ynios Apartments, Wrangler Paranjpe road, Behind Hotel Vaishali, Shivajinagar, Pune - 411004. Maharashtra. PAN: AADCJ5286H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Devadatta Mainkar – AR Revenue by Shri Ajay D.Kulkarni – Addl.CIT(DR) on rotation duty Date of hearing 07/08/2025 Date of pronouncement 08/08/2025 आदेश/ ORDER
PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:
This is an appeal filed by Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC],passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2017-18 dated 09.06.2025, emanating from order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 21.03.2022. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), NFAC (hereinafter referred to as "the CIT(A)") your Appellant Company submits, among others, the following grounds for your sympathetic consideration:
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in passing ex-parte order without granting sufficient opportunity to the Appellant Company
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and also in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition of Rs.1,00,034 being difference between interest income offered to tax and interest income as per form 26AS. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the Appellant Company had already credited interest income to the profit and loss account and provided reconciliation with form 26AS in the assessment proceedings.
3. Your Appellant reserves the right to add, to alter or amend any of the above grounds, if necessary.” Submission of ld.AR :
2. The ld.AR for the Assessee filed a paper book. Ld.AR submitted that Assessee had not filed the Return of Income for A.Y.2017-18 u/s.139(1) of the Act. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148 of the Act, then Assessee filed Return of Income on 06.08.2021 declaring returned income at Rs.5,99,806/-. In the assessment order, Assessing Officer(AO) made addition of Rs.1,00,034/- erroneously.
2.1 Ld.AR took us through the copy of return of income to explain that total interest received by assessee was Rs.2,54,290/-, but inadvertently assessee had shown interest of Rs.2,35,721/-. Thus, there was a difference of Rs.18,569/-. However, erroneously Assessing Officer held that interest amount of Rs.1,00,034/- received from Andhra Bank has not been disclosed. Ld.AR took us through the relevant pages of the Return of Income and Bank Statement. Ld.AR submitted that all the details were filed during the assessment proceedings.
Submission of ld.DR: 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue relied on the order of Assessing Officer and ld.CIT(A).
Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the record placed before us. In this case, admittedly Return of Income was not filed by Assessee u/s.139(1) of the Act, for A.Y.2017-18. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148 of the Act, dated 31.03.2021 for A.Y.2017-18 based on the information received from DGIT(systems). The Assessee filed Return of Income in response to notice u/s.148 on 06.08.2021 declaring total income at Rs.5,99,806/- . The Assessing Officer has made addition of Rs.1,00,034/-. The relevant paragraphs of 4.1, 4.2 & 4.3 are reproduced here as under : “4.1 Interest Income-There is information that during the period under consideration assessee has received the interest receipt of Rs.2,54,290/- Vide notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act, assessee was requested to furnish the details of interest income earned during the period under consideration and reconcile the same with the form-26AS.
4.2 The assessee vide annexure-6 of submission dated 21.02.2022, furnished the statement of reconciliation with 26AS. On verification of reconciliation statement it is noticed that assessee has shown the income of Rs.2,35,721/- on account of interest received from bank deposit in its Profit & Loss Account against the interest receipt of Rs.1,54,256/- as per 26AS (Assessee version). The payer bank also deducted the TDS of Rs.28,825/-(approx 20%) on the said interest payment. However, on verification of Form 26AS it is noticed that during the F.Y. 2016-17assessee has received the gross amount of Rs.2,54,290/- including Rs.1,54,256 (on which TDS of Rs.28,825/- deducted) and Rs.1,00,034 (on which TDS was not deducted) from Andhra Bank. COMP
4.3 The assessee has not disclosed Rs. 1,00,034 on which TDS was not deducted by Andhra Bank. Therefore Rs.1,00,034 is added to the total income of the assessee under the head "Income from Other Sources". (Addition:-Rs.1,00,034/-)”
4.1 Aggrieved by the addition, Assessee filed appeal before the ld.CIT(A) who confirmed the addition stating that Assessee did not furnish any documentary evidence.
In this case, erroneously ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee stating that no documentary evidence was furnished. However, all the documents were on record of the Income Tax Department. The most important document which was required for analysis was Income Tax Return. It seems that ld.CIT(A) has not even bothered to read the Income Tax Return filed by the Assessee. Since ld.CIT(A) has not bothered to read the Return of Income filed by Assessee and the assessment order, it resulted into unnecessary trouble for the Assessee to file the appeal before this Tribunal.
In the Income Tax Return, at page no.10 Assessee has shown interest income of Rs.2,35,721/-. This fact is also mentioned by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order in para 4.2 which we have already reproduced. In the para 4.2 of the assessment order, Assessing Officer has admitted that during the year, Assessee has received Gross Amount of Rs.2,54,290/- including Rs.1,54,256/- and Rs.1,00,034/- from Andhra Bank. It means, in the assessment order, Assessing Officer has admitted that Assessee has received Gross Interest Income of Rs.1,54,256/- + Rs.1,00,034/- = Rs.2,54,290/-. Thus, Assessing Officer himself has admitted that Assessee has received interest income of Rs.2,54,290/- which includes Rs.1,00,034/- received from Andhra Bank. Assessing Officer has also admitted that Assessee has disclosed interest income of Rs.2,35,721/-. Therefore, the actual difference is only Rs.18,569/-. The ld.AR for the Assessee has also admitted that by mistake, interest income of Rs.18,569/- was not offered for taxation.
6.1 In these facts and circumstances of the case, we confirm the addition of Rs.18,569/- out of Rs.1,00,034/- made by Assessing Officer. Accordingly, Ground No.2 of the Assessee is partly allowed.
Ground No.1 : 7. Assessee has alleged that ld.CIT(A) has not provided sufficient opportunity. However, we have observed from the order of the ld.CIT(A) that ld.CIT(A) had issued notices on 20.09.2024, 29.04.2025, 06.05.2025 and 22.05.2025. In these facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in the Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee, accordingly, Ground No.1 is dismissed.
Ground No.3 8. No Ground was altered, amended, hence ground no.3 is dismissed.
In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 08 August, 2025.