Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's return was selected for scrutiny, and the Assessing Officer computed income at Rs. 2.27 crores, whereas the assessee had declared Rs. 2.18 crores. The assessee appealed to the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal.
Held
The Tribunal found that there was a clerical mistake of Rs. 9,25,382/- in the computation sheet used by the Assessing Officer, which was erroneously upheld by the CIT(A). The assessment order itself had no additions, and the disputed figure was a mistake apparent from the records.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the Assessing Officer's computation of income from business or profession which included an incorrect figure due to a clerical mistake and exempt income.
Sections Cited
250, 143(3), 10(38)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey
order
: February 18, 2026 ORDER
Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.04.2025 of the NFAC, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’] passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2018–19.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income and the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer computed income of the assessee at Rs 2.27 crores.
New Way Constructions Ltd 3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) wherein the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before us challenging the very impugned order thereby submitting that the Assessing Officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) has erred in computing income from business or profession at Rs. 2,27,78,487/- instead of Rs.2,18,53,105/- business income computed by the assessee which after set off of brought forward business loss of Rs.2,18,53,105/- would be Nil.
Contrary to that, the ld. DR supports the impugned order.
We have considered the submissions of the counsels of the respective parties and perused the materials on record. We find that the only issue raised by the assessee is against the order of the ld. CIT(A) upholding the assessment order wherein inadvertent mistake of Rs.9,25,382/- has occurred while preparing computation sheet, thus wrongly upheld the same. We also find that in this case, the assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer vide order dated 17.02.2021 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act wherein no addition was made. We note that in the computation sheet attached with the order of the Assessing Officer has taken income from business or profession at Rs.2,27,78,487/- whereas the income from business or profession as declared by the assessee is Rs.2,18,53,105/-, hence there is a difference of Rs.9,25,382/-. We also note that the ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order at page 3 mentioned that income shown from the business or profession is inclusive of LTCG income of sale of Singer India Ltd. of Rs.9.25 lacs which is exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act, which in our opinion is a clerical mistake on the part of the assessee. We further find from the return filed New Way Constructions Ltd by the assessee that the assessee has shown profit & loss from the business other than speculative business at Rs.2,18,53,105/- which was taken by the Assessing Officer in the computation sheet as Rs.2,27,78,487/-, which is mistake apparent and needs to be rectified. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to take the income from business or profession at Rs.2,18,53,105/-.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
Kolkata, the 18th February, 2026.