Shyam Sundar Jalan, Kolkata V. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE

ITA 323/KOL/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2466 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: FORM 26AS
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 323/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shyam Sundar Jalan...............................................Appellant [PAN: ADJPJ 7168 E] Vs. DCIT, CPC.............................................................Respondent Appearances by: None appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Sh. Pradip Mandal, Addl. CIT(D/R), appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Date of concluding the hearing : July 4 th , 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : July 27 th , 2022 ORDER Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ld. ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) dated 26.08.2021 for the AY 2017-18. 2. There is a delay of 217 days in filing of the appeal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation. After perusing the same, we are convinced that the assessee was prevented by I.T.A. No. 323/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shyam Sundar Jalan. Page 2 of 4 sufficient cause from filing of the appeal in time. Hence, we condone the delay and admit the appeal of the assessee. 3. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee despite issue of notice. Therefore, we proceed to decide the present appeal after hearing the Ld. D/R and going through the available records. 4. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming addition of Rs 5,88,189/- to the total income of the appellant merely due to inconsistency between receipts towards income from House Property income as per return of income and Form 26AS, without appreciating the fact that the differential amount represents arrear rent which has already been offered for taxation in the return of income of the respective AY on accrual basis. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in confirming the order passed by the A.O which leads to double taxation of the same income in the hands of the appellant. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) was not justified and grossly erred in not providing sufficient opportunity to the appellant while confirming the order passed by the A.O. and hence the order is against principles of Equity and Jurisprudence. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, on disposal of this appeal, material adjustments would be required in computing total income, and tax (including interest, if any, payable by and/or to the appellant) for the assessment year under reference and necessary direction may be given to the A.O. on this front. 5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement, or alter any of the Grounds stated here-in-above, either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.” I.T.A. No. 323/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shyam Sundar Jalan. Page 3 of 4 5. The sole issue raised by the assessee in this appeal is regarding the confirmation of addition of Rs. 5,88,189/- due to the inconsistency between the income shown by the assessee from house property in the return of income as compared to the figures shown in Form 26AS as per the tax deducted at source by the concerned parties. The plea of the assessee in this case is that the differential amount represents the arrear of rent which has already been offered for taxation in the return of income of the respective assessment years on accrual basis. It has also been pleaded that the Ld. CIT(A) has not given adequate opportunity to the assessee to reconcile the figures. 6. Since the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex-parte order and the assessee has claimed that differential amount has already been offered for taxation in respective years as the same was on account of arrears of rent of other years., hence, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of Ld. AO to verify the aforesaid contention of the assessee and pass afresh order on this issue in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order is pronounced in the open court on 27.07.2022. Sd/- Sd/- [Manish Borad] [Sanjay Garg] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 27.07.2022 Bidhan (P.S.) I.T.A. No. 323/Kol/2022 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shyam Sundar Jalan. Page 4 of 4 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Shyam Sundar Jalan, 68A, Nimtalla Ghat Street, Nimtalla, Kolkata-700 006. 2. DCIT, CPC. 3. CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. True copy By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata