BASU PHARMACEUTICALS,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD 22(2), KOLKATA

order : August 14th, 2024 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: Both the appeals filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2018-19 are directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi [in short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 08.02.2024 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 143(3)/143(3A)/143(3B) of the Act. 1.1. The brief facts of the case of the appellant are that the appellant being a partnership firm carrying wholesale medicine business, return of income for the AY 2018-19 was filed declaring total income of Rs. Of Rs. 1,14,49,898/-. The said return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act wherein total income was I.T.A. No.: 729 & 730/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Basu Pharmaceuticals. assessed at the rate of Rs. 1,96,70,656/- by making addition of Rs. 82,20,758/- to the total income. Against the said order, the appellant had filed rectification application u/s 154 of the Act and before passing any order u/s 154 of the Act the case was selected for scrutiny for the assessment and assessment was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 24.02.2021 computing total income of Rs. 1,97,18,060/-. The assessee has filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) wherein also appeal of the assessee has been dismissed and as well as appeal filed dated 13.08.2019 has also been treated as dismissed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order the present two appeals have been preferred for the same issue. 1.2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order thereby submitting that appellant being a partnership firm carrying the wholesale business of trading in medicine since long. The ld. A/R submits that addition of Rs. 82,20,758/- was made on account of disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taken into account in computing the total income. It has been argued that due to the typographical mistake done by the auditor in the audit report the amount which has been added in the total income in amount in admissible column. Ld. A/R submits that in fact it was only a typographical mistake done by the auditor in the audit report and the same could not be done before ld. CIT(A) also. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee only on this ground that the appellant had not filed any explanation as to how the above auditor’s report is incorrect nor the auditor has given any certificate confirming that there was some typographic mistake on their part and the figure shown in the original tax audit report was not correct. The ld. Counsel for the assessee filed before this Tribunal the tax audit report of the assessee and submits that auditor has also given a certificate and his submission is that this is the correct audit report from which assessment could be made. 1.3. The ld. D/R supports the impugned order.