VINOD KUMAR GUPTA,JAIPUR V. ITO WARD 1(2), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

ITA 726/JPR/2025

AI Insights

Vinod Kumar Gupta appealed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which confirmed an addition of Rs. 11,56,302 to his income for the Assessment Year 2021-22. This addition was initially made by the Centralized Processing Center (CPC) under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, rectifying an earlier assessment under section 143(1). The primary contention was that the same income was taxed twice: once under 'Income from Business or Profession' and again under 'Income from House Property' and 'Other Sources'. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's argument and remanded the case for a detailed verification of the income assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 771811 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAUTAM SINGH CHOUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRAWAN KUMAR GUPTA
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Source of fund
• Section: 154; 234B

Judgement Text

"vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ,o Jh ujsUnz dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 726/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o\"kZ@Assessment Year : 2021-22 Vinod Kumar Gupta 7, Lal Ji Sand Ka Rasta, SMC Highway, Jaipur cuke Vs. ITO, Ward 1(2), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABUPG8584E vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 20/08/2025 mn?kks\"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 28/08/2025 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: NARINDER KUMAR, Judicial Member. By way of a present appeal, the assessee challenges the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ for short ‘NFAC/ CIT(A) ’] passed on 25.01.2024 for Assessment Year 2021-22. The said order of the ld. CIT(A) arose, as assessee had challenged the order dated 29.07.2022 passed under section 154 of the Income Tax Act 1961 [ for short Act ], by Centralized Processing Center [ for short AO/CPC]. Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No. 726/JP/2025 Vinod Kumar Gupta vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “Ground1.1 The impugned assessment order u/s 154 RWS 143(1) dt. 29.07.2022 is, are bud in law, illegal, invalid, void ab-intin on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction, and also barred by Imitation and various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed. 1.2 The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in passing the exparty order without providing adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard and in gross breach of law. Hence the additions so made by the id. AO may kindly be quashed and delete. 2. The Id. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming/sustaining the addition of Rs.11,56,302/-made by the Id. AO by assessing the business income at Rs.15,34,254/- as against of Rs. 3,77,952/- shown by the assessee. As the Id. AO and CIT(A) have also grossly erred in making/sustaining the addition of Rs. 11,56,302/-by taking the following income under the business income: House property 11,34,000/- (after statuary deduction of Rs. 3,40,200/-and home loan interest of Rs.2,08,320/- at Rs. 5,85,480/-) Bank Interest and FDR interest income of Rs. 22,302/- (after deduction of Rs.1784/- u/s 80TTA at Rs.20518/-) 3. Ground as against the income from house property, other sources which had had already been shown and taxed under these income separately in the respective heads vide ITR itself. Thus the ld. AO taxed the income of Rs. 11,56,302/- twice or double one under the business income and second under the respective heads or sources of income. Only due to accounting or entries in 3CD report ignoring the computation or feeding of income in the ITR. Hence the addition so made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) are being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence same may kindly be deleted in full. 4. Ground 3. The Id. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C, 234D. The appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, may kindly be deleted in full. 5. Ground 4. The appellant prays your honour indulgences to add, amend or alter of or any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing. Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No. 726/JP/2025 Vinod Kumar Gupta vs. ITO 3. At the outset of hearing, the Bench observed that there is delay of 397 days in filing the appeal by the assessee for which the ld. AR of the assessee filed an application for condonation of delay dated 30.04.2025. The application is companied with the affidavit duly sworn. The contents of the affidavit read as under :- Reg: Vinod Kumar Gupta V/s AO CPC PAN: ABUPG8584E U/s 154 rws 143(1) for A.Y. 2021-22 I, Vinod Kumar Gupta S/o Late Sh. Bihari La! Gupta Aged 56 years, R/o 7. Lalji Sand Ka Rasta SMS Highway Jaipur, Raj. 302003 do hereby solemnly affirm on oath as under: 1. That I am a regular IT assessee and fully conversant with its affairs. 2. That an appeal is being filled by me before your honor for A.Y. 2021- 22 against the order of CIT(A) u/s 154 rw 143(1) by the delay about 1 year I month 5 days late. Although actually there is no delay if following facts are being considered. 3. That the reason of late filing was that the I am ar individual and running small business, the order was sent on the email [e-mail] which belongs to my earlier counsel, while for the appeal work other counsel was engaged and in the form 35 my email id which is [e-mail] was given for communications on which no order was sent. As the email on which the order was sent has been escaped by the counsel to be seen, As also the counsel wa: under impression that as I have engaged other counsel for appeal work and having the knowledge of appeal communication. Thus I was not having the knowledge about the order. However recently in last week of April 2025 I asked to the counsel about the status of appeal, then he checked the portal and state I that Ex-party order has already been passed on 25.01.2024. Hence due to communication gap between me and counsel's order could not come in my knowledge and the appeal could not be filled. Thereafter my consult with counsel, who is looking to the appeal matters narrating all the above facts then he has advised to file the appeal with the condonation application as there is sufficient or reasonable cause and there is prima facie a strong case in our favour. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No. 726/JP/2025 Vinod Kumar Gupta vs. ITO 4. That thereafter my counsel has started to prepare the appeal and the appeal has been prepared on 30.04.2025 and sent to me for Sign now. 5. That there was no also negligence's of either me nor the counsels as there is bonafide human being mistake due to communication gap. Thus due to this reason the appeal could not be filed within time. 6. That the contents or averment of application for condonation of delay are true and correct and may be treated as part of this affidavit. Place Jaipur Date: 01.05.2025 Deponent VERIFICATION I. Vinod Kumar Gupta S/o Late Sh. Bihari Lal Gupta Aged 56 years, R/o 7. Lalji Sand Ka Rasta SMS Highway Jaipur Raj. 302003, do hereby verified that the contentions of above para 1 to 6 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, nothing has been concealed God may help me. Place: Jaipur Date: 01.05.2025 Deponent 4. On this issue during the course of hearing, the ld. DR objected to assessee’s application for condonation of delay stating that the serving of the notice at the email is sufficient and the order too but at same time he did not object to the facts mentioned in the application so filed. Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No. 726/JP/2025 Vinod Kumar Gupta vs. ITO 5. We have heard the contention of the parties and perused the materials available on record. The prayer by the assessee for condonation of delay of 397 days has merits as the email id mentioned ([e-mail]) which belongs to earlier counsel, while for the appeal work other counsel was engaged and in the form 35 their email id was provided. That email id was [e-mail]. On this email id, the assessee has not received any notice or order and thereby the assessee submitted that they have sufficient reason to file the appeal with a delay. Considering that fact and since ld. DR did not dispute that fact we concur with the submission of the assessee and hereby condone the delay of 397 days in filing the appeal by the assessee. 6. Succinctly, the fact as culled out from the records is that in this case an order u/s 143(1) was rectified u/s 154 of the Act by CPC on 29.07.2022 with an addition of Rs. 11,56,302/- and thereby the income was assessed at Rs. 15,34,254/- as against the income returned at Rs. 3,77,952/-. 7. Aggrieved by that order of Assessing Officer, CPC as per provisions of section 154 of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee as the Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No. 726/JP/2025 Vinod Kumar Gupta vs. ITO assessee did not make any compliance to the following three notices issued by the ld. CIT(A). Sl. No. Date of Notice Date of Hearing Remarks 1 24/03/2023 31/03/2023 No Reply 2 20/12/2023 27/12/2023 No Reply 3 02/01/2024 10/01/2024 No Reply Therefore, the appeal was dismissed without considering the merits of the dispute. 8. Aggrieved by that order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal on the grounds stated hereinabove. Apropos to the grounds so raised, ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued that in the case of assessee same income which is reflected in the ITR has been taxed twice. He supported that contention by providing a reconciliation chart of the income assessed, which reads as under:- House Property Income 11,34,000/- Business Income 3,77,952/- Interest Income/Income from other Sources 22,302/- Total 15,43,254/- Considering that income assessed by the CPC u/s. 154 of the Act with that of the ITR filed, the income which is already assessed under the other head of income is again taxed as Income from Business or Profession Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No. 726/JP/2025 Vinod Kumar Gupta vs. ITO and thereby taxed the same income twice. To support that contention read with the above addition, he invited our attention to the computation of income as extracted hereinbelow; Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No. 726/JP/2025 Vinod Kumar Gupta vs. ITO 9. As is evident from the above that house property income is already offered separately and thereby taxing it again under the head profit and gain of business or profession does not require to be added and that too under the provision of section 154 of the Act. He also submitted that the other income of Rs. 22,303 is also same way offered as other income. Considering that aspect of the matter, he submitted that the order passed u/s. 154 of the Act is required to be quashed as there is no mistake apparent on record. 10. In support of this contention, ld. AR of the assessee filed paper book containing following evidences. S. No. Particulars Page No. 1 Copy of it Return acknowledgement and Computation of total income 1-5 Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No. 726/JP/2025 Vinod Kumar Gupta vs. ITO 2 Copy of P L account and trading account 6-8 3 Copy of ITR return 9-30 11. Considering the above dispute, ld. AR of the assessee fairly admitted let this aspect be verified by the ld. AO on this limited aspect and assess the correct income in the hands of the assessee. 12. On the other hand, ld. DR relied upon the order of the lower authorities and stated that the assessee did not represent their case before ld. CIT(A), but at the same time he did not raise any objection to the request of the ld. AR of the assessee. 13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material placed on record. The bench noted that in this case after filling the return of income by the assessee that return was processed by issuing intimation as per provision of section 143(1) of the Act. Thereafter, that intimation was rectified considering the provision of section 154 of the Act and the income was assessed at Rs. 15,43,254/-. Thereby income offered under the head property income and other income were considered under the head income from business or profession. The assessee demonstrated that the assessee has already offered the income of Rs. 11,34,000/- under the head Income from Property and Rs. 22,302/- as other income and thereby considering that income again under the head income from business or profession is Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No. 726/JP/2025 Vinod Kumar Gupta vs. ITO not correct. With this limited verification, the bench considers that this issue will be verified by the ld. AO, after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and assess the correct income in the hands of the assessee. Considering that prayer of the assessee, we find force in the arguments advanced by the ld. AR of the assessee and considering the totality of the facts, we consider it fit to remand back the matter before the ld. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer to decide this limited issue and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. At the same time, assessee is directed to represent and present all the facts before the assessing officer and should not ask for the adjournment on frivols grounds. Result In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28/08/2025. Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼ujsUnz dqekj½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (NARINDER KUMAR) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 28/08/2025 *Ganesh Kumar, Sr. PS vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA No. 726/JP/2025 Vinod Kumar Gupta vs. ITO 1. The Appellant- Vinod Kumar Gupta, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward 1(2), Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 726/JP/2025) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "