What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the lower authorities had made a double addition of insurance commission income. To rectify this, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer/CPC for a fresh computation.

The assessee's appeal for AY 2017-18 arose from an intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act. The primary issue was a double addition of insurance commission income.

What were the issues?

Whether the insurance commission income was wrongly added twice in the intimation under section 143(1).

Mayur Muralidhar Parekh, Amravati vs DCIT | ITAT Nagpur 2024

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR “SMC” BENCH :NAGPUR [VIRTUAL HEARING]

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 22.03.2024Pronounced: 08.05.2024

Date of Hearing : 22.03.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 08.05.2024 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021- 22/1037508564(1), dated 06.12.2021, involving proceedings u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2. The assessee pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal :

“THAT the learned AO erred in assessing the insurance

commission income of Rs. 487794/- doubly under the head other sources, while processing the return u/s 143(1). The same is improper, incorrect and deserves to be deleted.

2 ITA.No.27/NAG./2023 2. THAT the computing of income at Rs.9,44,500/- u/s.143(1) as against returned income of Rs.4,56,710/- is improper, unjust and intimation u/s 143(1) deserves to be modified. 3. THAT any other ground/s that may be raised at the time of hearing.”

Learned counsel’s sole substantive plea raised during the course of hearing is restricted to the limited extent of double addition made by both the learned lower authorities regarding insurance commission of Rs.4,87,794/- in sec.143(1) “intimation” as upheld in the NFAC’s order herein. That being the limited relief sought to the extent of double addition, the Revenue is equally fair enough in not opposing the same in principle.

Faced with this situation, I deem it appropriate to restore the instant assessee’s sole substantive grievance back to the Assessing Officer/CPC for afresh appropriate computation so as to ensure that no double addition made in the taxpayer’s hands.

Ordered accordingly.

This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 08.05.2024.

MAYUR MURALIDHAR PAREKH,AMRAVATI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. CPCP, BANGLORE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Latest GST High Court judgments