M/s. Kalebudde Logistics, Hubballi V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

ITA 143/BANG/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0669 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Set aside
• Section: 44AD; 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” “A” BENCH, BENGALURU Before Shri B.R. Baskaran, Accountant Member ITA No. 143/Bang/2022 (Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/s. Kalebudde Logistics 75/2 B, Kalebudde Warehouse Gabbur, Hubballi 580029 Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Procesing Unit Bengaluru PAN – AAOFK5346F Appellant Respondent Appellant by: Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate Respondent by: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale Date of Hearing: 30.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 31.05.2022 O R D E R Per: B.R. Baskaran, A.M. The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 6-12- 2021 passed by Ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi and it relates to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee is aggrieved by the addition of Rs.20,38,470/- made to the income declared under the head Income from House property and Rs.2,07,425/- made to the income declared under the head income from other sources. 2. I heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of warehousing, logistics and undertaking clearing and forwarding operations. The assessee declared its income under the head “income from business”. The gross turnover of the assessee was Rs.1,07,75,739/- and the assessee declared income @ 9% u/s 44AD of the Act. It so happened that the payers of the rental income and commission income had deducted tax at source from the payments made by them. While processing return of income u/s 143(1), the CPC noticed that the assessee has not declared any income under the head Income from House Property and Income from other sources. Accordingly, ITA No. 143/Bang/2022 M/s. Kalebudde Logistics 2 adjustments were made in the intimation by including house property income of Rs.20,38,470/- and income from other sources of Rs.2,07,425/-. 3. The assessee filed appeal before ld CIT(A) mentioning above facts. The Ld CIT(A) took the view that the assessee should have declared income under the head Income from house property and income from other sources, instead of considering them as business income. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. 4. I notice that the assessee has furnished break-up details of is gross receipts as under before Ld CIT(A):- Truck hire charges receipts - 76,56,214 Godown sub-letting charges - 29,12,100 Commission received - 2,07,125 ----------------- Total 1,07,75,739 ============ The Ld A.R submitted that the adjustment made to house property income amounting to Rs.20,38,470/- is included in the Godown sub-letting charges of Rs.29,12,100/-. Similarly the adjustment made to income under the head Income from other sources is the commission income of Rs.2,07,125/- included in the gross receipts. Accordingly, the Ld A.R submitted that both these amounts have already been included in the gross receipts on which income has been estimated by the assessee. Accordingly, he submitted that there is no necessity to make any further adjustment and the same leads to double assessment of same income. 5. I heard Ld D.R. From the facts discussed above, I find merit in the submissions made by the assessee. As pointed by him, the assessee has already included the house property income and commission income in its gross receipts. In that case, there is no necessity to make any separate adjustments again. The CPC has taken the view that the said incomes are assessable as house property income/other sources income. However, the assessee has considered the same as business income. The view so taken by CPC is debatable one. In any case, it is established that there is no ITA No. 143/Bang/2022 M/s. Kalebudde Logistics 3 omission on the part of the assessee to include both the income in its gross receipts. Hence the adjustments made by CPC u/s 143(1) are liable to be deleted. Accordingly, I set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the adjustments of Rs.20,38,470/- and Rs.2,07,425/- made in the intimation given u/s 143(1) of the Act. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Dictated and pronounced in the open Court on 31 st May, 2022. Sd/- (B.R. Baskaran) Accountant Member Bengaluru, Dated: 31 st May, 2022 Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) -NFAC, Delhi 4. The CIT 5. The DR, ITAT, Bengaluru 6. Guard File By Order //True Copy// Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bengaluru n.p.