INCOME TAX OFFICER, MURSHIDABAD V. ASOK KUMAR JAIN, MURSHIDABAD

ITA 804/KOL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Revenue against the order of the ld. CIT (A), which allowed the appeal of the assessee, Asok Kumar Jain, for the Assessment Year 2021-22. The primary issue was the double addition made by the ld. AO / CPC in the assessee's income, which was later rectified as it was a clerical error. The assessee had inadvertently shown a capital receipt as income in the tax audit report, which was corrected in a revised report. The CIT (A) found that the assessee was liable to tax on a reduced amount after rectifying the mistake, leading to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 777115 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2025
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJIB KUMAR PAUL
• Assessee Lawyers: GAURAV AGARWAL
• Keywords: Capital receipt; Gift; Capital expenditure

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA No.804/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year:2021-22) Income Tax Officer Aaykar Bhawan, 39, RN Tagore Road, Berhampore, Murshidabad, West Bengal-742101 Vs. Asok Kumar Jain 23, Shahid Surya Sen Road, Berhampore, Murshidabad, West Bengal-742101 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AEVPJ2710YH Assessee by : Shri Gaurav Agarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, DR Date of hearing: 04.09.2025 Date of pronouncement: 15.09.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order of the ADDL/ JCIT (A), Thiruvanantpuram (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 21.08.2024 for the AY 2021-22. 02. At the outset, we observe from the appeal folder that there is a delay of 167 days in filing the appeal by the department for which a condonation petition was filed. It was stated in the condonation petition that the delay has occurred due to obtaining the administrative approvals from the competent authorities in the hierarchy, which took quite a long-time and accordingly, the delay has occurred and may be condoned. The ld. AR, on the other hand, did not oppose the condonation of delay. Considering the reasons cited before us, we are inclined to condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is against the double addition by the ld. AO / CPC. Printed from counselvise.com Page | 2 ITA No. 804/KOL/2025 Asok Kumar Jain; A.Y. 2021-22 2.1. The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 04-03-2022 and intimation under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was passed on 27-07-2022. The income of the assessee was assessed under section 143(1) at ₹3,00,35,276 as against a return of income of ₹37,14,800/-, thereby making an addition of ₹ 2,63,20,476 which was treated to be on account of income shown inadvertently in point number 16 in tax audit report under the head any other income which in fact represented the capital expenditure.The assessee revised the tax audit report on 9thMarch 2023, rectifying the said mistake. During the year, the assessee’s taxable income was ₹38,91,800/- after ₹2,48,83,718/- was claimed as exempt which was on account of share of profit received from partnership firms on which the tax was already paid by the partnership firms and hence, this mistake has happened. 2.2. In the appellate order, the ld. CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding and observing as under: - “1. The Appeal was filed by the appellant on 07-11-2022 for the AY 2021-22 against the Order of CPC AO passed u/s 143(1) of I.T Act, 1961 on 22-07-2022 and served on 28-10-2022. In this case, an amount of Rs 26320480/- was added whereas the appellant claimed as capital receipts. The break up of the capital receipt is shown as under: 1. 1. Total capital as at 31-03-2021 of Rs 271808762.28 2. Less opening capital as at 01-04-2020 of Rs 243033242.51” 3. Total addition in capital account during the year 01-04-2020 to 31-03-2021 of ₹28775519.77 4. Less income offered to tax while filing ITR(note-1) of Rs 38,91,800.74 Capital Receipts of Rs 24883719.03 Details of Capital receipts 1. Capital receipts of Rs 2488371.03 Printed from counselvise.com Page | 3 ITA No. 804/KOL/2025 Asok Kumar Jain; A.Y. 2021-22 2. Less share of profit from partnership firm of Rs 22390449.41 3. Less gift received from relatives exempt u/s 56(2)(vi) of Rs 10,00,000 4. Less income tax refund u/s 237 of Rs 753640 Total Capital Receipts (not offered for tax) of Rs 739629.62 The details bifurcation of Rs 739629.62 is shown below: Therefore, the appellant was liable to tax on the remaining capital receipt of Rs 724369. The appellant mentioned that he inadvertently had shown capital receipt of Rs 26320481 in point no. 16 of tax audit report instead of Rs 24883719/-. Therefore, the balance amount addition of Rs 1436761 is deleted. In the result, the appeal is allowed.” 2.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the appellate folder, we find that this was a genuine mistake on the part of the assessee which was duly corrected by the ld. CIT (A).Therefore, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the revenue and same is dismissed as by upholding the order of the ld. CIT (A). 3. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 15.09.2025 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Printed from counselvise.com Page | 4 ITA No. 804/KOL/2025 Asok Kumar Jain; A.Y. 2021-22 Copy of the Order forwarded to: BY ORDER, True Copy// Sr. Private Secretary/ Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, 5. Guard file. Printed from counselvise.com "