Chandwani Ashok Kumar, Bhopal V. The Income Tax Officer, 2(2), Bhopal

ITA 119/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2978 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: VAISHALI JAIN
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, J.M. AND SHRI R.C.SHARM A, A.M. PAN NO. : ADVPC473611 I.T.A.NO. 119 /IND/201 3 A.Y. : 2009-10 CHANDWANI ASHOK KUMAR, VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, BHOPAL PROP. RAM A PEN HOUSE, AZAD MARKET, BHOPAL. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI VAISHALI JAIN, C. A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. A. VERMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 20 . 0 5 .201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 . 0 5 .201 3 O R D E R PER R. C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) DATED 14 TH DECEMBER, 2012, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN THE MATTER OF INTIMATION PASSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORDS PE RUSED. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDU AL CARRYING ON -: 2: - 2 PROPRIETORY BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME OF RAMA PEN HOU SE. THE ASSESSEE HAS E-FILED INCOME TAX RETURN ON 31.7.2009 WHEREIN GROSS TOTAL INCOME WAS DECLARED AT RS. 1,59,480/-. THE E-FILE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WAS ALSO GENERATED IN WHICH GROSS T OTAL INCOME WAS MENTIONED AT RS. 1,59,480/-. HOWEVER, TH E RETURN WAS PROCESSED BY THE ITO, C.P.C., BANGALORE U/S 143 (1) ON 31.5.2010, AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,18,960/- WHIC H WAS EXACTLY DOUBLE THE RETURNED INCOME. IN AN APPEAL FI LED BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE LD. CIT(A) ASKED BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE PRINT OUT OF THE RETU RN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ELECTRONICALLY. BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURNISHED COPY OF PRINT OUT OF TH E RETURN. HOWEVER, IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ONLY CONSIDERED PRINT OUT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. EVEN AS PER THE PRINT OUT REPRODUCED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER, THERE APPEARS TO BE CLERICAL MISTAKE IN SO FAR AS C OLUMN NO. 6 SHOWS THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 2,18,960/-, COLUMN NO . 7 SHOWS LOSS OF CURRENT YEAR WITH SET OFF AGAINST COLUMN 6 AMOUNTING TO NIL. COLUMN NO.8, WHICH IS NET OF COLUMN NOS. 6 & 7 MENTIONED THE INCOME AT RS. 1,59,480/-, WHICH IS AP PARENTLY -: 3: - 3 WRONG. EVEN AS PER THE ARITHMETICAL CALCULATION, IT SHOULD BE RS. 3,18,960/- ( RS. 3,18,960/- (-) 0 ). 3. MRS. VAISHALI JAIN, C. A. APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS COMPUTER/CLERICAL MISTAKE IN PROCESSING THE RETURN. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN T O THE INCOME TAX RETURN FILED IN FORM NO. 4 WHICH CLEARLY INDICATED BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 1,59,480/-. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO THE COMPUTATION OF IN COME, WHICH CLEARLY INDICATED PROFIT AND GAINS OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AT RS. 1,59,480/-. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SR. DR CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE PROCESSING DONE BY THE COMPUTER A ND IN CASE OF ANY COMPUTER MISTAKE, IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER/ CIT(A) FOR PROPER APPRECIATION. 5. WE FOUND THAT AS PER I. T. R. 4, THE ASSESSEE HA D SHOWN INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION IN PART III AMO UNTING TO RS. 1,59,480/-, WHEREAS AS PER THE PROCESSING DONE BY COMPUTER, THE INCOME HAS BEEN TAKEN JUST DOUBLE THE INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE APPEARS TO BE CLERICAL /COMPUTER -: 4: - 4 MISTAKE, WHICH IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE CERTIFIED T RADING AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHIC H WERE DULY AUTHENTICATED BY THE C. A. EVEN THE RETURNS FILED F OR EARLIER THREE YEARS INDICATED TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 1,21,140/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, RS.1,16,530 /- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND AT RS. 1,27,030/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR TH AT THERE WAS COMPUTER MISTAKE IN PROCESSING THE RETURN, ACCO RDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO TAKE THE CORRE CT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 1,59,480/- IN PLACE OF RS. 3,18 ,960/-. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N 20 TH MAY, 2013. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (R. C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 20 TH MAY, 2013. CPU* 205