GHANSHYAM BAJABHAU KADAM, MUMBAI V. DY COMM OF INCOME TAX-41(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 166/MUM/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Ghanshyam Bajabhau Kadam, a proprietor of Trimurti Gas Service, who appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, which confirmed the addition of Rs.4,05,875 to his business income for the Assessment Year 2021-22. The Income Tax Department's Centralized Processing Center (CPC) in Bangalore had initially processed Kadam's return and made this addition, which he contested. The primary contention was that this income, although added to business income, was reported under different heads in the tax return and had already been taxed under those heads. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and the tax return details, decided to remand the matter back to the AO for a detailed examination of the assessee's claims.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 130148 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 19-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 17-01-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

P a g e | 1 ITA No.166/Mum/2023 Ghanshayam Bajabhau Kadam VS. DCIT-41(2)(1) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 166/Mum/2023 (A.Y.2021-22) Ghanshyam Bajabhau Kadam, Trimurti Gas Service Shop No. 4, Sharada Sadan, Hanuman Chowk, Gokhale Road, Mulund (East) Mumbai – 400081 Vs. DCIT-41(2)(1) Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AABPK9490P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : Dharan Gandhi Respondent by : C.T. Mathews Date of Hearing 20.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement 30.03.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeal filed by the assesse is directed against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 16.12.2022 for A.Y. 2021-22. The assesse has raised the following grounds before us: “1. The ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of ld. A.O (CPC) of adding Rs.4,05,875/- to business income of appellant in spite of the fact that the same income has been offered to tax under other heads.” 2. The CPC Bangalore has processed return of income filed by the assessee vide intimation dated 08.07.2022 and added Rs.4,05,875/- as business income of the assessee. In this regard, the assessee submitted that being a proprietary, income not chargeable under the tax head “Profit and gain of Business or Profession” are credited to capital P a g e | 2 ITA No.166/Mum/2023 Ghanshayam Bajabhau Kadam VS. DCIT-41(2)(1) account and same are reported under different heads in the return filed. However, the CPC has not agreed with the submission of the assesse. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A). the ld CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assesse. 4. Heard both the sides and perused the material on record. During the course of appellate proceeings before us the ld. Counsel submitted that as per clause 16(d) of Form 3CD it is statutory requirement to provide detail of income not credited to profit and loss account. The ld. Counsel also explained that income reported under clause 16(d) of Form 3CD have already been offered to tax under different heads. However, the same was not considered by the CPC before making the impugned addition as business income of the assessee. With the assistance of the ld. Representative we have perused the copy of income tax return filed by the assessee wherein at part A under column 5 (d) the assesse has shown amount of Rs. 4,05,875/- credited to profit and loss account further as per schedule 0S of the return of income under the head income from other sources the assessee has given the break-up of the amount of Rs.4,05,875/- shown as income under the head income from other sources which comprised i.e i. Interest on FDR of Rs.2,31,832/- ii. Interest on sale SBI Bank Rs.7961/- iii. Interest on ................ Rs.1476/- iv. LIC pension scheme Rs.10,752/- v. Interest of income Tax refund Rs.1003/- vi. Agricultural income Rs.52,851/- After perusal of the above information it is noticed that the aforesaid particulars of income have already been reflected in the schedule 0S and schedule E of the return of income filed by the assesse pertaining to assessment year 2021-22 which have not been verified before treating the amount of Rs.4,05,875/- as business income of the assesse. In view of the above facts and circumstances we restore this matter to the file P a g e | 3 ITA No.166/Mum/2023 Ghanshayam Bajabhau Kadam VS. DCIT-41(2)(1) of the AO for verification/examination of the claim of the assessee as reflected in the different schedule of the return of income filed by the assesee thereby to decide the issue denovo. Therefore, this ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.03.2023 Sd/- (Amarjit Singh) Accountant Member Place: Mumbai Date 30.03.2023 Rohit: PS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यावपि प्रवि //True Copy// आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai.