ANISHA KARAMCHANDANI,NEEMUCH vs. ITO, NEEMUCH, NEEMUCH

(Assessment Year: 2011-12) Anisha Karamchandani, Income Tax Officer, 137, Khushbu, Neemuch Vs. Jawahar Nagar, Neemuch (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: AKRPK5859J Assessee by Ms. Nisha Lahoti, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 08.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement 09.08.2024 O R D E R

This appeal by the assesse is directed against the order dated 22.02.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mysore for A.Y. 2011-12 which is arising from the assessment orders u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act dated 03.12.2018.

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the re-assessment order passed by Ld. AO u/s 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in not providing the copy of the approval obtained for issuing notice u/s 148.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the re-assessment order passed u/s 147 rws 143(3) which were initiated merely on the basis of the information received from DDIT (Inv)-II, Indore more particularly without providing the information so gathered to the assesee

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the re-assessment order passed u/s 147 rws 143(3) merely on the basis of the third party statement without bringing on record anything specific in relation to the transactions executed by the assessee and without providing the copy of the statement of the third party

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in not providing an opportunity of cross- examination of the third party on whose statement reliance has been placed despite specific request made by the assessee

6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the assessed had already reported the income of Rs. 1,91,848 in her original return of income filed thereby leading to double taxation

7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and applicable law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,91,848 on a factually incorrect basis that the Ld. AO had made the additon as unexplained expenditure whereas the Ld. AO merely stated that the addition be made to the total income

3. At the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee requested for not pressing legal issues raised in Ground No. 1 to 5. Accordingly Ground No.1 to 5 are dismissed as not pressed.

4. So far as Ground No. 6 & 7 are concerned the issues are raised on merits. Ld. A.O made total addition of Rs.1,91,848/-.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the alleged sum of Rs.1,91,848/- added by the Ld. A.O already stands offered to tax by the assessee in the Income Tax Return and therefore it tantamount to double addition and the same deserves to be deleted.

Ld. A.O concluded the reassessment proceedings by making addition of Rs.1,91,848/- to the returned income of Rs.2,52,690/- furnished in the e-return in compliance to notice u/s 148 of the Act and accordingly income assessed at Rs.4,44,538/-.

6.1 On considering the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee I have perused all the computation of income attached to the original return as well as return filed in reply to notice u/s 148 of the Act. Itclearly indicates that the assessee had offered Rs.1,91,848/- as share profit and included the same with other income mentioned under the head income from other sources.

After including the income of Rs.1,91,848/-the total income generated in the return is Rs.2,52,688/-. So there remains no dispute to the fact that the alleged sum of Rs.1,91,848/- has already been offered to tax by the assessee in the Income Tax Return. Therefore the alleged addition made by the Ld. A.O is a double addition. I therefore set aside the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and No.6 & 7 of the appeal. Ground No.8 is general in nature which eds no adjudication.