DEBASISH BANERJEE,KOLKATA vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 456/MUM/2024Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 July 2024AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that the assessment was based on an erroneous upload of income details for a different assessment year. However, since the evidence submitted by the assessee had not been verified by the AO, the matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a Senior Executive Vice President at Reliance Infrastructure Limited, filed a revised return for AY 2016-17, but inadvertently uploaded income details for AY 2018-19. The Assessing Officer (AO) finalized the assessment based on this incorrect upload, leading to higher income computation. The assessee's appeal to the CIT(A) was unsuccessful.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment order, based on inadvertently uploaded income details for AY 2018-19 instead of AY 2016-17, is erroneous.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Sarveshwar Sharma, C.A. & Ms. Shruti
Hearing: 12/06/2024Pronounced: 31/07/2024

O R D E R

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre/CIT(A), vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058215697(1), dated 24.11.2023 passed against the assessment order by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-35(1), Mumbai, u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"), dated 06.12.2018 for Assessment Year 2016-17.

2.

The sole grievance of the assessee in the present appeal is that the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessment order, which was based on 2 a draft computation of income, inadvertently filed along with the return of income, resulting in wrongful additions in the hands of assessee.

3.

Brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is working as Senior Executive Vice President of Mumbai Power Distribution business in Reliance Infrastructure Limited. He engaged Mr. Dinesh Patil, Tax consultant, who filed the assessee’s original return of income for the impugned AY on 29/06/2016, at Rs.56,99,390/-. Further the return was revised on 05/08/2017 at the total income of Rs.46,79,010/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for scrutiny through CASS with service of statutory notices. The assessee in response filed a revised computation on 27/11/2018 by declaring total income of Rs.1,05,74,110/- wherein inadvertently income details of AY 2018-19 were uploaded. The AO finally framed the assessment computing the total income of the assessee at Rs.1,20,23,320/-. 3.1. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but without success.

4.

Before us, ld. Counsel for assessee submitted that the ld. AO has assessed the income from salary for AY 2016-17 on the basis of inadvertently uploaded computation of income for AY 2018-19. He submitted that due to the mistake on part of the tax consultant while filing the return, the correct amount of salary was never before the ld. AO. He submitted that assessee has earned Rs.68,09,190/- as taxable salary during AY 2016-17 and TDS was deducted at Rs.17,04,464/-. In order to substantiate his claim, the assessee has filed correct computation of income, Form 16 issued by the employer and Form 26AS, which are placed on record. Ld. Counsel finally prayed that the matter be restored

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →