KAILAS KANTILAL KOTHARI,NASHIK V. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE

ITA 1957/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Kailas Kantilal Kothari, the appellant, contesting an intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which resulted in the double taxation of rental income from Kotak Mahindra Bank. The Income Tax Department, represented by the Addl. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru, processed the return and made adjustments that the assessee argued were incorrect. The Tribunal noted that the rental income was taxed twice under different heads and decided to remand the matter back to the JAO for a detailed examination and correction if necessary.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 788605 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MILIND DEBAJE; VIRTUAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANKET JOSHI; VIRTUAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.No. 1957/PUN/2025 (Assessment Year 2021-2022) Kailas Kantilal Kothari, Utility Centre L 16A, Opp. Rajiv Gandhi Bhawan, Sharanpur Road, Nashik, Maharashtra PAN : AGLPK 8678 D vs. Addl. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Sanket Joshi, AR (virtual) For Revenue : Shri Milind Debaje, JCIT (virtual) Date of Hearing : 19.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 26.11.2025 ORDER PER : MANISH BORAD, AM This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of ADDL/JCIT (Appeals), Thiruvanantpuram [“CIT(A)”], dated 10/03/2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”) which is arising out of intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act, dated 28/11/2022, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22. 2. Registry has informed that there is a delay of 80 days in filing the instant appeal. Application for condonation of delay Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA.No.1957/PUN./2025 (Kailas Kantilal Kothari) along with affidavit has been filed. Considering the reasons mentioned in the affidavit, which is mainly on account of illness of assessee‟s wife, who has been suffering cancer, we find that sufficient cause prevented the assessee from filing the present appeal in time and the delay is not intentional and therefore adopting a justice oriented approach and also taking guidance from the judgments of Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. [(1987) 2 SCC 107] and in the case of Inder Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh judgment dated 21.03.2025 (2025 INSC 382), hereby condone the delay of 80 days in filing of the instant appeal before this Tribunal and admit it for adjudication 3. In the grounds of appeal, the assessee has raised legal issue challenging the validity of intimation issued by CPC u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act on the ground that no opportunity as mandated in first Proviso to section 143(1)(a) of the Act granted to the assessee prior to making adjustments. On merits, it is contended that rental income received from Kotak Mahindra Bank, has been again added in the hands of the assessee for the self-occupied property. 4. At the outset, learned counsel for the assessee requested for not pressing the legal issue and, therefore, the same is dismissed as not pressed. So far as merits of the case are Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA.No.1957/PUN./2025 (Kailas Kantilal Kothari) concerned, he fairly admitted that due to an inadvertent mistake committed in filing income tax return, the income of rent from Kotak Mahindra Bank has been shown at two places, as a result of which, the alleged adjustment has been made by the CPC and, therefore, if an opportunity is granted for going before the Ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), the correct state of facts can be provided to the satisfaction of the Ld.AO. 5. On the other hand, Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) supported the order of Ld.CIT(A). 6. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We observe that the assessee is an individual and filed return of income on 03/03/2022 for A.Y. 2021-22 declaring income of Rs. 16,50,340/-. The bone of contention of the assessee is that for the income on house property wherein the assessee has earned NIL income for self-occupied property and the interest from housing loan has been claimed. Secondly, the assessee has also other immovable property, which has been let out for major part of the year to Kotak Mahindra Bank, for which rent of Rs. 23,04,000/- has been received and for remaining part of the year has been let out to Kalyan Jewellers fetching rental income of Rs.2,88,000/. Now, from gross rent of Rs. 25,92,000/- received from letting out of the property, the assessee has claimed interest on loans and Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA.No.1957/PUN./2025 (Kailas Kantilal Kothari) standard deduction and balance amount of Rs. 2,71,824/- after adjustment of the housing loan for self-occupied property at Rs. 2,00,000/-, net income of Rs. 71,824/- has been shown by the assessee. However, in the return processed by the CPC, the actual value of the self-occupied property which is claimed by the assessee at NIL had been adopted by the CPC at Rs. 23,04,000/-. On the face of record, it shows that the gross rent receipt of rent from Kotak Mahindra Bank at Rs. 23,04,000/- which has already been considered under the head „income from self-occupied property‟ has again taxed as Annual Letting Value of self occupied property. Such adjustment made by the CPC clearly indicates that the rental income from Kotak Mahindra Bank has been taxed twice. Learned counsel for the assessee has not denied the possibility of punching of wrong figures in the income tax returns for the income of self-occupied house property. It is an admitted fact that CPC works on a software which processes return filed by the assessee and as per commands given in such software, the total income is calculated. 7. However, under the given facts and circumstances of the case where the rental income from Kotak Mahindra Bank has been considered twice by the CPC, we deem it appropriate to restore the issue on merit to the file of ld. JAO for necessary verification and after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee to file the relevant details to prove that the correct Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA.No.1957/PUN./2025 (Kailas Kantilal Kothari) rent income has been declared in the income tax return under the head „income from house property‟, ld.JAO shall decide in accordance with law. The assessee is also directed to remain vigilant and not to take unnecessary adjournments unless required for reasonable cause. Effective grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26.11.2025. Sd/- Sd/-/- [VINAY BHAMORE] [MANISH BORAD] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune, Dated 26th November, 2025 vr/- Copy to 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT(A), Pune concerned. 4. D.R. ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. Guard File. By Order //True Copy // Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "