Sh. Dinesh Kumar Singal, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ward-1, Malerkotla

ITA 683/CHANDI/2022

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Dinesh Kumar Singal against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, which upheld the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- as rental income under 'income from other sources' by the CPC, Bengaluru. The assessee argued that this income was already declared under 'income from house property' in his tax return, leading to double taxation. The Tribunal examined the income declarations and Form No. 26AS, which showed that the rental income was indeed declared under 'income from house property' and tax was deducted at source. The Tribunal concluded that the addition under 'income from other sources' was erroneous and directed its removal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 127785 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-05-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 10-11-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(1)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ “बी” , च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH ी आकाश द प जैन, उपा य! एवं ी %व&म (संह यादव, लेखा सद-य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM ITA NO. 683/Chd/ 2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Dinesh Kumar Singal H.No. 2218, Urban Estate Dugri Phase-1, Ludhiana The ITO Ward-1, Malerkotla (Through DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru) PAN NO: ADLPS1131L Appellant Respondent ! " Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA and Shri Aditya Kumar, CA # ! " Revenue by : Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR $ % ! & Date of Hearing : 18/05/2023 '()* ! & Date of Pronouncement : 22/05/2023 आदेश/Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dt. 09/09/2021 pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: 1. “That order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as NFAC was not justified to uphold the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- as rental income by way of prima facie adjustment u/s 143(1). 2. That NFAC was not justified to hold that the mistake is not apparent from record and thus, is not rectifiable u/s 154.” 2. At the outset, it is noted that there is a delay in filing the present appeal as pointed out by the Registry. During the course of hearing, both the parties were heard and affidavit so filed by the assessee seeking condonation of delay was 2 perused and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, we find that there was reasonable cause in late filing of the present appeal. Hence, the delay is condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication. 3. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the limited issue in the present appeal relates to the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- under the head “income from other sources” by CPC, Bangalore while processing the return of income which is already offered to tax by the assessee under the head “income from house property”. It was accordingly submitted that it has resulted in double taxation of the same income which cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 3.1 In this regard, the Ld. AR taken us through the return of income filed by the assessee wherein the assessee has disclosed income from house property amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/- and after claiming statutory deduction @ 30%, the net amount of Rs. 2,10,000/- has been offered under the head “income from house property”. It was submitted that the CPC, Bangalore while processing the return of income has accepted the assessee’s income as so declared under the head “income from house property” and at the same time, carried out an adjustment by way of an addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- under the head “income from other sources”. 3.2 It was submitted that the said adjustment has been done by CPC, Bangalore basis Form No. 26AS holding that there is a inconsistency between the income under the head “Income from other sources” as declared by the assessee in the return of income and has reflected in Form No. 26AS. In this regard, our reference was drawn to the Form No. 26AS wherein the assessee has received rental receipt of Rs. 3,00,000/- from M/s R. D. Associates on which tax under section 194IB has been deducted @ 10%. It was submitted that the said rental income was disclosed by the assessee under the head “income from 3 house property” while filing the return of income and therefore there is no basis for making the addition of the same income again under the head “Income from other sources”. 3.3 It was submitted that on receipt of the intimation under section 143(1) dt. 15/04/2019, the assessee moved a rectification application before the CPC, Bangaluru which was again dismissed. It was submitted that the assessee left with no option moved in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) which has again not given the requisite relief to the assessee and hence the present appeal has been filed by the assessee before the Tribunal seeking necessary relief from double taxation. 3.4 It was submitted that in light of the undisputed fact that the rental income has already been offered to tax under the head “income from house property”, there is no basis for making the addition of same income under the head “income from other sources” and it was accordingly submitted that necessary relief may be provided to the assessee by deleting the addition so made by the CPC, Bangaluru and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. 4. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on the record. On perusal of the return of income filed by the assessee, we find that the assessee has shown income of Rs. 2,10,000/- under the head “income from house property” wherein the annual lettable value has been shown at Rs. 3,00,000/- and statutory deduction @ 30% has been claimed. We further note that the adjustment which has been made by CPC, Bengaluru relates to the rental income of Rs 3,00,000/- from M/s R. D. Associates as reflected in Form No. 26AS which has form the basis of the adjustment done by CPC, Bangaluru wherein the same has been brought to tax under the head “income from other sources”. We therefore find that there is clearly a mistake apparent from record 4 while processing the return of income wherein the CPC, Bengaluru has acknowledged the rental income under the head “income from house property” as so declared by the assessee at Rs. 3,00,000/- in his return of income, and at the same time, has brought to tax again under the head “income from other sources” resulting in double taxation of same income. In view of the same, the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- so made by the CPC, Bengaluru and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi is hereby directed to be deleted. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/05/2023 Sd/- Sd/- आकाश द प जैन %व&म (संह यादव (AAKASH DEEP JAIN) ( VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) उपा य! / VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद-य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG Date: 22/05/2023 ( + ! , - . - Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. $ / CIT 4. - 0 ग 2 3 & 2 3 456 ग7 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. ग 6 8 % Guard File ( + $ By order, 9 # Assistant Registrar