Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI MANISH BORAD
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ��./ ITA No. 112/Jab/2014 �� � � � � � � / Assessment Year : 2008-09 Jagdish Prasad Agrawal, Assistant Commissioner of H. No.159, Main Bazar, Vs Income-tax, Shahpura Bhitoni, Circle 1(1), Jabalpur (MP) Jabalpur (MP) PAN : ADOPA 8458 K / (Appellant) / (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vijay Gupta, CA Revenue by : Shri PD Chougule, DR $ %&'/Date of Hearing : 13/03/2018 ! "# $ %&' /Date of Pronouncement: 15/03/2018 ()*+ "# .//O R D E R , - PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal of assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 is directed against the order of the CIT(A)-I, Jabalpur dated 25.02.2014 vide appeal No.J/CIT(A)/DCIT/Circle1(1)/JBP/91/2010-11, arising out of intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), issued by the DCIT, Circle 1(1), Jabalpur on 13.03.2010.
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed before us. We find that the assessee has raised two issues; firstly, challenging the validity of the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Act and secondly, on the addition made in the intimation sheet, thereby assessing the income at Rs.9,08,660/- as against the income of Rs.75,890/- shown by the assessee in the income-tax return. We further find that that the appeal came up for adjudication before the Tribunal on 06.04.2016 and the issue of validity of intimation was adjudicated by the Tribunal but did not adjudicate ground nos. 2 & 3 relating to the merits of the case.
ITA No. 112/Jab/2014 Jagdish Prasad Agrawal Vs. ACIT AY : 2008-09
Thereafter, the assessee filed Miscellaneous Application and the appeal has been restored for the limited purpose of adjudicating ground nos. 2 and 3, which read as follows:-
“2. Considering the fact that returned income of the appellant was Rs.75,890/- only but in intimation the ld. AO has taken returned income at Rs.9,08,660/- without assigning any reason hence the ld. CIT(A) erred in law in rejecting the ground of appellant about taking of wrong income by holding that the appellant should have filed rectification application on this issue. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) should have held that the ld AO erred in taking in intimation returned income at Rs.9,08,660/- instead of Rs.75,890/- returned by the appellant.”
The only contention of the assessee is that there is no information provided by the Revenue Authorities as to how they have assessed the income at Rs.9,08,660/- when the income shown by him in the income-tax return is at Rs.75,890/-. We find that the assessee declared income at Rs.75,890/-. The return was processed and intimation under Section 143(1) of the Act was issued assessing income at Rs.9,08,660/-. It is not disputed that the assessee failed to file any rectification application under Section 154 of the Act; however, it is established judicial precedent that the assessee should be taxed for the income earned by him during the year. In the intimation sheet, there is no details mentioned which could show that on what basis the income has been assessed at Rs.9,08,660/-. It can be either typographical error or any other error committed at the end of the Revenue Authorities assessing the income of the assessee at a higher amount. We, therefore, in the interests of justice and in the given facts and circumstances of the case, set aside the issue raised in this appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer who will provide necessary information to the assessee about income calculated in the intimation sheet and, thereafter, the
ITA No. 112/Jab/2014 Jagdish Prasad Agrawal Vs. ACIT AY : 2008-09
Assessing Officer will decide the issue afresh in accordance with the law, after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. In the result, ground nos. 2 & 3 are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above.
Order pronounced in the Court on 15th March, 2018 at Jabalpur.
Sd/- Sd/-
(KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jabalpur; Dated 15/03/ 2018 *Bit
8/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 012 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 9 7: ;<2 7 = 1. >?@ABCD / The Appellant 2. EFGCD / The Respondent. 3. NGQR / Concerned CIT HIJIKLM NG OP TUV) / The CIT(A) 4. GQR( NGO P N S ^a,/ DR, ITAT, Jabalpur 5. KL, [\ KWXBY @G EKMKZ ]^ S TUVU \ S_`] eA / Guard file. 6. YBbc dB n/ BY ORDER, f gh i j kl m j TRUE COPY n (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) p/ o m q j r s pt u v s j g / ITAT, Jabalpur {, f r s n w p v x v r w y z s n w q | gj } j