SANGEETA GODHA,BHOPAL, MADHYA PRADESH vs. ITO-2(3), BHOPAL, INCOME TAX, BHOPAL

(Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) PAN: ABDPG0142Z Assessee by Ms. Nisha Lahoti, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 01.08.2024 Date of Pronouncement 05.08.2024 O R D E R

This appeal by the assesse is directed against the order dated 13.03.2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centers,(NFAC), Delhi for A.Y.2016-17 which is arising from the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 12.11.2018.

Sangeeta Godha “1. That on the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred and is not justified in sustaining addition of Rs. 6,37,415 which is bad in law and therefore be deleted.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law it be held that the assessee had no income of Rs. 6,37,415 under section 56 of the I.T Act and therefore the addition is unlawful and kindly be deleted 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the levy of interest in the section u/s. 234A at Rs. 6228 and Rs. 33216 u/s. 234B are unlawful and without jurisdiction and therefore be deleted”.

Sangeeta Godha 4. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) but failed to get any relief.

5. Aggrieved assessee is now in appeal before this Tribunal. Ld. AR supported the submissions made before the lower authorities.

Sangeeta Godha 7.1 I, further observe that during the course of assessment proceedings itself the assessee furnished all the details of the share of profit from various partnership firms including that of M/s Arti Agrawal. The correct procedure for the assessee was to revise the income tax return by correcting the amount but apparently assessee was not aware of the inadvertent mistake committed in the return filed by the consultant and the time to file revised return lapsed. But it was only during the course of assessment proceedings this error of incorrect figure came to her knowledge. I find that this is not a case where the assessee has earned the exempt income from any other source for which the assessee herself has to prepare the details of income and expenditure. The case before me is of share of profit from partnership firm which is duly supported by the balance sheet, confirmation of amount and PAN details of the partnership firm. Inadvertent mistake can be committed but it certainly cannot be taken against the assessee if sufficient evidence is placed to prove such inadvertent mistake. Once when the assessee has accepted the mistake and the correct amount of share of profit was placed before Ld. A.O then he ought to have accepted that the assessee has unknowingly mentioned the wrong amount of share of profit u/s 10(2A) of the Act and there being no evidence on record placed by the revenue suggesting that assessee has converted the taxable/undisclosed income into exempt income.

7.2 Therefore under the given facts and circumstances of the case and giving the benefit of doubt to the assessee for the inadvertent mistake committed in filing the return of mentioning wrong figure of share of profit from the partnership firm M/s Arti Agrawal, I hereby reverse the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and delete the impugned addition of Rs.6,37,415/-. Accordingly the impugned addition is deleted. Ground No. 1 & 2 raised by the assessee are allowed. Ground No.3 being consequential in nature needs no adjudication.

Order pronounced in the open court on 05.08.2024.