UTTAM NARAYANMAL MEHTA, MUMBAI V. Income Tax Officer - Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai, Mumbai

ITA 2757/MUM/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2636 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 29-04-2024
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 04-08-2023
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESHWARI MENON
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 2757/MUM/2023 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Uttam Narayanmal Mehta, SK Metal, Shop No. 10, Ground Floor, 380/388, Majestic Mansion, SVP Road, Near Harikishandas Hospital, Opp. Central Bank of India, Girgaon, Mumbai-400004. Vs. Income Tax Officer – Ward 19(3)(1), Piramal Chamber, Dr. S S Rao Marg, Lalbaug, Parel, Mumbai-400012. PAN NO. AAGPM 7908 K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30/04/2024 Date of pronouncement : 30/04/2024 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2018-19, raising following grounds: 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax App Faceless Appeal Centre), Delhi erred in confirming the order under section 154 passed by the Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai (Assessing Officer) that the mistake of considering the profit of proprietary concern of the appellant twice at the time of computing the total income of the appellant is not a mistake apparent from record and therefore cannot be rectified under section 154 of the Act. Your Appellant submits that the aforementioned mistake is a mistake apperrant from record and the same ought to be rectified under section 154 of the Act. 2. The learned Assessing Officer erred in not allowing the appellant to change the head for deduction claimed in respect of profit from proprietary concern amounting to Rs. 32,28,110 from, "Income/receipts credited to profit and loss account considered under other heads of income/chargeable u/s 115BBF/ chargeable u/s 115BBG Other sources" at Sr. No. 3(d) of Schedule BP to "Any other amount allowable as deduction" at Sr. No. 32 of Schedule BP Assessing Officer ought to have allowed the appellant to change the head of deduction under section 154 of the Act. 2. At the outset, a letter has been filed on behalf of the assessee wherein it is submitted that the asses electronically on the portal of the Income (ITAT). But subsequently, the assessee also filed a hard copy of the appeal which was registered at ITA No. 2950/M/2023 also been heard and disposed off 30.01.2024. The assessee has filed a copy of the order of the Co ordinate Bench of the Tribunal dated 30.01.2024. In view of the above order, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) also agreed that the present e-filed appea is liable to be dismissed as infructuous. Accordingly, we order to dismiss this appeal as infructuous. 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals (National Faceless Appeal Centre), Delhi erred in confirming the order under section 154 passed by the Income Tax Officer 19(3)(1), Mumbai (Assessing Officer) that the mistake of considering the profit of proprietary concern of the appellant ice at the time of computing the total income of the appellant is not a mistake apparent from record and therefore cannot be rectified under section 154 of the Act. Your Appellant submits that the aforementioned mistake is a mistake apperrant from nd the same ought to be rectified under section 154 of 2. The learned Assessing Officer erred in not allowing the appellant to change the head for deduction claimed in respect of profit from proprietary concern amounting to Rs. 32,28,110 from, "Income/receipts credited to profit and loss account considered under other heads of income/chargeable u/s 115BBF/ chargeable u/s 115BBG Other sources" at Sr. No. 3(d) of Schedule BP to "Any other amount allowable as deduction" at Sr. No. 32 of Schedule BP. Your Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer ought to have allowed the appellant to change the head of deduction under section 154 of the Act. a letter has been filed on behalf of the assessee wherein it is submitted that the assessee had filed electronically on the portal of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). But subsequently, the assessee also filed a hard copy of the appeal which was registered at ITA No. 2950/M/2023 also been heard and disposed off by the Tribunal in order dated 30.01.2024. The assessee has filed a copy of the order of the Co ordinate Bench of the Tribunal dated 30.01.2024. In view of the above order, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) also agreed filed appeal is merely duplicate and therefore, liable to be dismissed as infructuous. Accordingly, we order to dismiss this appeal as infructuous. Uttam Narayanmal Mehta 2 ITA No. 2757/MUM/2023 eals (National Faceless Appeal Centre), Delhi erred in confirming the order under section 154 passed by the Income Tax Officer - Ward 19(3)(1), Mumbai (Assessing Officer) that the mistake of considering the profit of proprietary concern of the appellant ice at the time of computing the total income of the appellant is not a mistake apparent from record and therefore cannot be rectified under section 154 of the Act. Your Appellant submits that the aforementioned mistake is a mistake apperrant from nd the same ought to be rectified under section 154 of 2. The learned Assessing Officer erred in not allowing the appellant to change the head for deduction claimed in respect of profit from proprietary concern amounting to Rs. 32,28,110 from, "Income/receipts credited to profit and loss account considered under other heads of income/chargeable u/s 115BBF/ chargeable u/s 115BBG Other sources" at Sr. No. 3(d) of Schedule BP to "Any other amount allowable as deduction" at Sr. . Your Appellant submits that the Assessing Officer ought to have allowed the appellant to change a letter has been filed on behalf of the assessee see had filed this appeal tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT). But subsequently, the assessee also filed a hard copy of the appeal which was registered at ITA No. 2950/M/2023, which has by the Tribunal in order dated 30.01.2024. The assessee has filed a copy of the order of the Co- ordinate Bench of the Tribunal dated 30.01.2024. In view of the above order, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) also agreed l is merely duplicate and therefore, it liable to be dismissed as infructuous. Accordingly, we order to 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous. Order pronounced in the open Court o Sd/- (ANIKESH BANERJEE JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 30/04/2024 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/04/2024. - Sd/ ANIKESH BANERJEE) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Uttam Narayanmal Mehta 3 ITA No. 2757/MUM/2023 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as /04/2024. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai