SACHIN BHASKAR KURANDALE,PUNE V. ITO, WRD-13(2), PUNE, PUNE

ITA 1249/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Sachin Bhaskar Kurandale, an individual deriving income from salary, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which denied him relief under section 89(1) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2017-18. The primary contention was the denial of relief amounting to Rs. 1,56,662, which was initially claimed in the original return but not in the revised returns. The Assessing Officer accepted the income computation but denied the relief as it was not claimed in the last revised return. The CIT(A) upheld this decision, leading to the appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 824500 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARSHIT BARI VIRTUAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DEEPA KHARE
• Keywords: Revised return; Salary income
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1249/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sachin Bhaskar Kurandale, A/p Annapur, Tal- Shirur, Dist.- Pune- 412218. PAN : BCHPK8331E Vs. ITO, Ward-13(2), Pune. Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 02.04.2025 passed by Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)-6, Kolkata [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The ld.CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in denying the relief u/s 89(1) amounting to Rs. 1,56,662/-. Assessee by : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue by : Shri Harshit Bari (Virtual) Date of hearing : 16.12.2025 Date of pronouncement : 30.12.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1249/PUN/2025 2 2. The ld CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in denying the relief u/s 89(1) and confirming the action of the AO in assessing the net tax liability at Rs. 3,03,931/- as opposed to Rs. 2,99,655/-. 3. The Assessee craves leave to add, alter, modify or substitute any of the ground of appeal at the time of hearing.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from salary and has furnished its return of income on 02.07.2017 declaring an income of Rs.15,75,530/-. Subsequently, the assessee revised the return for further three times. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, through written submission furnished on 10.11.2019 the assessee requested before the Assessing Officer to consider the claim of relief u/s 89(1) of the IT Act and also furnished Form 10E online acknowledgement. The Assessing Officer accepted the computation of income but denied the claim of relief u/s 89(1) of the IT Act since it was claimed in the original return of income but was not claimed in the revised return of income. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) of the IT Act and vide order dated 11.12.2019 determining the total income at Rs.15,66,930/- Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1249/PUN/2025 3 however relief u/s 89(1) of the IT Act was not allowed to the assessee. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). After considering the reply of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by observing as under :- “5. DECISION:- 5.1 I have carefully gone through the assessment order u/s 143(3), the grounds of appeal and submission made by the appellant in this regard. Briefly stating facts of the case is that the appellant filed return of income which was taken up for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act on a total income of Rs.15,66,930/-. 5.2 Appellant has raised grounds of appeal mainly challenging the decision of the assessing officer in not allowing relief u/s 89(1) of the Act. Facts involved in the issue is that the appellant filed original return of income on 02.07.2017 disclosing total income of Rs. 15,75,530/-, The return was revised 3 times. First revised return was. filed on 20.12.2017 disclosing total income of Rs. 16,09,690/-. Second revised return was filed on 31.03.2018 disclosing total income of Rs.6,97,070/-. Third revised return was filed on 31.03.2019 disclosing total income of Rs.15,66,070/-. In the last of the return filed on 31.03.2019, the appellant did not claim any relief u/s 89(1). But during the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant claimed before the assessing officer to allow relief u/s 89 for Rs.1,56,662/-. The assessing did not allow the said claim as it was not made in the return of income. Income assessed was determined at Rs. 15,66,930/- on the basis of income disclosed in the last of the return filed where the income disclosed was Rs.15,66,070/-. Since there was no addition or disallowance made to the returned income, appellant's ground of appeal is not maintainable and the appeal is dismissed.” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1249/PUN/2025 4 5. Being aggrieved with the above order passed by Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal 6. We have heard Ld. counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including paper book furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that the assessee is only 10th class pass and is a salaried employee and was not advised properly by the professionals which is evident from the number of returns filed on his behalf. We further find that admittedly the income shown in the computation of income was accepted but the claim u/s 89(1) made in the above computation of income was denied by the Assessing Officer, since it was not claimed in the last revised return of income. It was the sole request of the Counsel of the assessee that since the income disclosed in the computation of income furnished on 10.11.2019 before the Assessing Officer was accepted as it is, the claim of relief u/s 89(1) made by the assessee in the same computation furnished before the Assessing Officer was also required to be accepted. In this regard, we find that the assessee has furnished Form 10E online and the acknowledgement was also furnished before Ld. CIT(A), however Ld. CIT(A) denied the claim Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1249/PUN/2025 5 on the ground that the same was not claimed in the last return filed by the assessee. 7. Considering the totality of the facts of the case, we find some force in the arguments of learned counsel of the assessee that the Form 10E was furnished online and the income shown in the last revised return was not accepted but the income shown in the computation of income furnished along with submission on 10.11.2019 before the Assessing Officer was accepted therefore the Assessing Officer ought to have considered the claim u/s 89(1) of the IT Act which was also made in the same computation of income. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and without going into merits of the claim u/s 89(1) of the IT Act, we deem it appropriate to set-aside the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with a direction to decide the claim made by the assessee u/s 89(1) of the IT Act afresh and as per fact and law after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also hereby directed to respond to the notices issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in this regard and to produce Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1249/PUN/2025 6 relevant documents, explanation and evidences, if any, to substantiate his case without taking any adjournment under any pretext, otherwise the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order as per law. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 30th day of December, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) (VINAY BHAMORE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 30th December, 2025. Sujeet आदेश कᳱ ᮧितिलिप अᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The Addl./JCIT(A)-6, Kolkata. 4. The Pr. CIT/CIT concerned. 5. िवभागीय ᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅ फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "