RAJESH GUPTA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 52(3), DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 145/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 September 2023AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the reconciliation statement filed by the assessee needed verification by the AO. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the AO for a fresh examination of the issue.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an electronic return of income. The CPC, Bangalore enhanced the income from other sources by Rs. 7,12,290/-. The assessee's rectification application and subsequent appeal to CIT(A) were unsuccessful.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the CPC, Bangalore was erroneous and required verification by the AO. The assessee claimed a mistake in the addition of rental income which was reflected in Form 26AS.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & MS. ASTHA CHANDRA

For Appellant: Shri Raghav Sharma, CA
For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Hearing: 19.09.2023Pronounced: 19.09.2023

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 12.01.2023 by NFAC, Delhi, pertaining to AY 2017-18.

2.

The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 7,12,290/- made by the CPC, Bangalore rejecting the rectification application filed by the assessee.

ITA No.-145/Del/2023 Rajesh Gupta 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return electronically on 12.06.2018, while processing the return of income, the CPC, Bangalore enhanced the income from other sources shown at Rs. 3,94,191/- to Rs. 11,06,484/-.

4.

Assessee moved a rectification application pointing out that a mistake has been made in adding Rs. 7,12,293/- being rental income as shown by the assessee and the same is being reflected in Form 26AS. The rectification application was not entertained by CPC, Bangalore. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success.

5.

Before us, the Counsel furnished a reconciliation statement showing the mistake committed by CPC, Bangalore.

6.

We have carefully considered the reconciliation statements filed by the assessee.

In our considered opinion, this reconciliation needs to be verified by the AO. Therefore, we deem it fit to restore the appeal to the file of the AO. The AO is directed to examine the reconciliation statement and decide the issue afresh as per the provisions of law and after given a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 19.09.2023.

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →