ILLABEN JAYANTKUMAR DOSHI,RAJKOT V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , RAJKOT

ITA 168/RJT/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Illaben Jayantkumar Doshi, the assessee, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) which upheld the Assessing Officer's decision. The dispute centered on the incorrect computation of income where an amount of Rs. 13,32,054 was added twice. The assessee argued that this was an inadvertent error and sought correction during the appellate proceedings. The Tribunal recognized the authority of appellate bodies to consider fresh claims and directed the Assessing Officer to rectify the computation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 714760 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Other Referred Cases: Goetze (India) Ltd. vs. CIT, Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT, Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DHEERAJ KUMR GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: R.D. LALCHANDANI
• Keywords: Proportionate interest; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 139; 14A

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,राजकोट Ɋायपीठ, राजकोट। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.168/RJT/2025 Ǔनधा[रण वष[/Assessment Year : 2013-14 Illaben Jayantkumar Doshi Illa Villa, Ashapura Road, B/h Karansinhji High School, Rajkot -360 001 बनाम/ Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Rajkot, Race Course Ring Road, Rajkot-360 001 èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: ABIPD 9936 B (अपीलाथȸ/Assessee) (Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri R.D. Lalchandani, AR राजèव कȧ ओर से/Revenue by : Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख /Date of Hearing : 14/05/2025 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement : 04/08/2025 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14, is directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)/Addl/JCIT(A) Panchkula [in short, “Ld.CIT(A”], dated 19.02.2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Act, on 08.03.2016. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The CIT(A) erred in upholding that the Assessing Officer was correct in determining the income at Rs. 29,650/-. There was an error whereby the Assessee had by mistake an amount of Rs.1,33,2,054/- was added twice in the computation of income. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 168/RJT/2025 (AY:13-14) Illaben J Doshi Page | 2 2. The CIT[A] erred in not using his powers to admit an additional claim. The Assessee had raised an additional claim which was allowable in view of the various decisions permitting the appellate authorities to allow raising an additional claim.” 3. Brief facts qua the issue are that assessee has filed return of income for A.Y 2013-14, declaring total income at Rs.26,793/-. The assessee`s case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Subsequently notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued on 03.09.2014. During the year under consideration, assessee engaged in business of stone crushing, share/commodities trading, deriving labour income, share of profit from M/s India Metal Supplying Co. and Coronation Motors, income from other sources, that is, interest income dividend etc. During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer asked the assessee to provide working of section 14A of the Act. In response to the notice, the assessee furnished reply, before the assessing officer, however, assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee and disallowed the proportionate interest income of Rs.2852/- under section 14A of the Act. 4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who has confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer, observing as follows: “6.3 It is important to note that the appellate proceedings are not meant for making fresh claims unless such claims were either not available at the time of the original filing of the return or due to a change in circumstances. The assessee has not demonstrated any such grounds that would warrant a fresh claim at this stage. The claim for deduction, although valid, was available to the assessee at the time of filing the return, but it was not made. The omission appears to be an error or oversight, but this does not change the fact that the claim was not made by filing a revised return. Given the clear ruling in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd.by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the absence of any valid justification for the omission of the claim during the return filing stage, I find no merit in the assessee’s submission. Therefore, I am constrained to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. Accordingly, these grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 5. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 168/RJT/2025 (AY:13-14) Illaben J Doshi Page | 3 6. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the taxpayer is entitled to claim the deduction before the appellate authorities which was not claimed in the original or revised income-tax return but was claimed in the assessment and appellate proceedings. The ld. Counsel contended that an amount of Rs.13,32,054/-, was erroneously added twice to the computation of income, which leads to an incorrect determination of the taxable income, therefore, an instruction may be given to the assessing officer to correct the error. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. Senior DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 8. I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that an amount of Rs.13,32,054/-, was erroneously added twice to the computation of income, leading to an incorrect determination of the taxable income. The assessee requested the Assessing Officer to correct the error by taxing the amount only once, submitting a revised computation of income and corresponding letter dated 16.07.2015. In the appeal, the assessee has sought relief on the ground that she should be entitled to make a fresh claim during appellate proceedings, citing various judicial precedents of Hon’ble Supreme Court, including the decision in Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders Pvt. Ltd., Jute Corporation of India, and Goetze (India) Ltd, before the lower authorities. It has been submitted that the omission was inadvertent, and the claim was not made due to an oversight, not due to mala fides. The assessee has placed reliance on the decision in the case of Goetze (India) Ltd. (284 ITR 323), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the assessing officer does not have the power to entertain Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 168/RJT/2025 (AY:13-14) Illaben J Doshi Page | 4 a fresh claim made by the assessee without a revised return under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act. 9. I note that the ld.CIT(A), during the appellate proceedings, held that decision in the case of Goetze India Ltd (supra) was based on the specific issue of fresh claims in the assessment proceedings and does not extend to claims made in the appellate proceedings, and therefore, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 10. I find that object of the assessment proceedings/ scrutiny proceedings, u/s 143(3) of the Act is to determine the correct income and correct taxes thereon. There is no bar to a taxpayer for making a claim by a letter without filing a revised return in a case u/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessing officer is not entitled to grant a deduction on the basis of a letter requesting an amendment to the return filed, however, the appellate authorities are entitled to consider the claim. Therefore, I direct the assessing officer to correct the amount of Rs.13,32,054/-, which was erroneously added twice to the computation of income, as it leads to an incorrect determination of the taxable income, and determine the taxable income of the assessee, afresh in accordance with law. 11. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee, is allowed for statistical purposes, in above terms. Order pronounced in the open court on 04/08/2025. Sd/- (Dr. A.L. SAINI) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER राजकोट /Rajkot Ǒदनांक/ Date: 04/08/2025 DKP Outsourcing Sr.P.S Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 168/RJT/2025 (AY:13-14) Illaben J Doshi Page | 5 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :  अपीलाथȸ/ The Assessee  Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent  आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT  आयकर आयुÈत(अपील)/ The CIT(A)  ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, राजकोट/ DR, ITAT, RAJKOT  गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File // True Copy // By order/आदेश से, सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, राजकोट Printed from counselvise.com "