Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI JOGINDER SINGH & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
Per Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 21.07.2017 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] relevant to assessment year 2012-13.
The only issue raised by the assessee in the various grounds of appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.2,85,049/- by Ld. CIT(A) upholding the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act wherein the ACIT CPC has added Rs.2,85,049/- to the income of the assessee which represents
The facts in brief are that at the time of generating XML the provision for income tax of Rs.2,85,049/- was added back to the taxable income of the assessee Rs.9,22,488/- resulting in the total income at Rs.12,07,488/-. The assessee received intimation under section 143(1) of the Act from CPC Bangalore indicating the returned income higher by Rs.2,85,049/- due to addition of provisions for taxation to the total income. The rectification application moved by the assessee under section 154 of the Act requesting for the rectification of apparent mistake, which has happened at the time of generating XML, h was collectively reported in form 3CD which was filed electronically as showing provision for taxation.
In the appellate proceedings, the Ld. CIT(A) also dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee itself uploaded the return of income with tax audit report and the processing done electronically by CPC wherein the said addition automatically made on account of mentioning the said amount at a wrong column/place.
After hearing both the parties and perusing the material on record including the annual accounts of the company, we find that Rs.2,85,049/- is shown on account of provision for taxation below the line in the profit & loss account and was correctly reported in the tax audit report which was uploaded electronically. However, while generating XML file the same
3 M/s. Royal Thermoset Pvt. Ltd. was added to the income of the assessee inadvertently. In our opinion, this is a mistake apparent in the computation of total income as the provision for taxation of Rs.2,85,049/- can not be added to the income of the assessee and has to be excluded. Merely because the income has been computed incorrectly by adding provisions for taxation inadvertently can not be ground for dismissing the appeal of the assessee for the reason that assessee itself file the return of income. In view of the above discussion we are unable to agree with the conclusion drawn by the CIT(A) and hence the order of Ld. CIT(A) is hereby set aside and the AO is directed to reduce the provisions for taxation of Rs. 2,85,049/- from the assessed income.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.09.2018.