ANJANI HIGHRISE LLP,KOLKATA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 325/KOL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 May 2024AY 2020-2021Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member), Shri Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member)3 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 that the authorities below did not properly examine the matter, leading to the disallowance of exempt income. The Tribunal accepted the assessee's claim and directed the deletion of the addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed exempt income of Rs. 10,00,000/-, but the CPC processed the return under Section 143(1) allowing only Rs. 4,83,420/-, resulting in an addition of Rs. 5,16,580/-. A rectification petition under Section 154 was filed but did not change the taxable income.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of exempt income by the CPC was justified, and if a mistake in the order could be rectified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 154

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA BENCH ‘SMC’, KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra]

Hearing: 14.05.2024Pronounced: 15.05.2024

ORDER

Per Sonjoy Sarma, JM:

1.

This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2020-21 is directed against the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals, NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘ld. CIT(A)’].

2.

Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed its return of income on 02.12.2020 declaring taxable income of Rs. 11,58,694/- (rounded off to Rs. 11,58,690/-). The return of income filed by the assessee was processed by the Central Processing Centre (CPC) u/s 143(1) of the Act on 25.11.2021 wherein the taxable income was computed at Rs. 16,75,270/- by enhancing an amount of Rs. 5,16,580/- in the hands of assessee. The assessee after analyzing the assessment order passed u/s 143(1), it was revealed that in annexure from business & profession the figure of exempt income as claimed by assessee of Rs. 10,00,000/- though CPC accepted in Serial No. 5(c) at Rs. 10,00,000/- but in Serial No. 5(d) the same was allowed for Rs. 4,83,420/- instead of 10,00,000/- resulting in a difference of Rs. 5,16,580/-. The claim of exempted income in the form of dividend received amounting to Rs.

2 AY: 2020-21 Anjani Highrise LLP 10,00,000/- was allowed only to the extent of Rs. 4,83,420/- without any reasons by the assessing authority. The assessee after identifying this apparent mistake from records filed a rectification petition u/s 154 of the Act before the competent authority. However, taxable income of the assessee was unchanged which was computed at Rs. 16,75,270/- in place of correct figure of Rs. 11,58,690/- as claimed by the assessee.

3.

Aggrieved by the rectification order dated 26.11.2021, assessee went into appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed.

4.

Dissatisfied with the above order, assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. At the time of hearing, ld. AR stated that the order passed by CPC in Serial No. 5(c) of the annexure of business and profession which has been admitted as allowable deduction for Rs. 10,00,000/-. However, in the said order Serial No. 5(d) of annexure was inserted as Rs. 4,83,420/- while passing order u/s 143(1) as well as rectification order u/s 154 of the Act. The ld. AR in order to substantiate his claim furnished a copy of order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act at page no. 59 by showing on the annexure business and profession at Serial No. 5(c), the figure was computed at Rs. 10,00,000/- whereas in Sl. No. 5(d) the same was typed as Rs. 4,83,420/- in place of Rs. 10,00,000/-. Therefore, he prayed before the bench stating that the claim of the assessee may be allowed by the Tribunal to the extent of Rs. 10,00,000/- as claimed by the assessee.

5.

On the other hand, ld. DR supported the order passed by the authorities below.

3 AY: 2020-21 Anjani Highrise LLP 6. We after hearing the rival submissions of the parties and perused the material available on record find that while passing the order u/s 143(1) as well as ld. CIT(A) did not look into the matter properly by disallowing exempt income to the tune of Rs. 5,16,580/- in the hands of assessee which is clearly indicated from the order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act. We, therefore, accept the claim of assessee and direct the AO to delete the impugned addition of Rs. 5,16,580/- as in the case of assessee. In terms of the above, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →