SAHANA MUKHERJEE ,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD - 47(4), KOLKATA , KOLKATA

Date of concluding the hearing : November 28th, 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : December 12th, 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

This appeal filed by the assesse is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 14, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the ‘Act’), dt. 21/05/2018, for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sahana Mukherjee 3. The assessee’s submission before the ld. CIT(A) was that the income from interest in question was taken into account but was wrongly reflected and included in the contract receipts. A revised statement of account was given and it was argued that there is no suppression as the interest income in question. It was disclosed in another head i.e. business receipts. The ld. CIT(A) did not accept this explanation as the assessee does not maintain books of account. Before us, the assessee submitted a reconciliation statement as well as a revised computation of income to demonstrate that if the amount in question is deducted from business receipts and included under the head “income from other sources”, then there would be not difference in the return of income. 3.1. In my opinion, this revised computation and statement of accounts need verification. It appears that the assessee committed an error in disclosing interest income under the head ‘business income’. Under these circumstances, I set aside this issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, in accordance with law.