WAHIBA ABUBKAR MUKADAM,RATNAGIRI V. ITO, WARD-1, RATNAGIRI, RATNAGIRI

ITA 1655/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Wahida Abubkar Mukadam, an individual running a Pathological Laboratory, who appealed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.19,28,328 to her income for the Assessment Year 2021-22. This amount, which included various receipts such as salary, rent, agricultural income, and gifts, was initially not credited to the profit and loss account of her business but was disclosed under different heads in her tax return. The CPC had made this addition based on the Tax Audit Report, which the assessee contested, arguing that these incomes were already declared and thus should not be subject to double taxation. The Tribunal agreed with the assessee, reversing the CIT(A)'s decision and allowing the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775880 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARSHIT BARI
• Assessee Lawyers: SHARAD VAZE
• Keywords: Salary income; Capital receipt; Gift; Rectification of order; Earning of tax free income
• Section: 56

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1655/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Wahida Abubkar Mukadam 633 AI Banat High School, Bhadgaon, Khed Ratnagiri - 415709, Maharashtra PAN: ALXPM9662Q Vs. ITO, Ward 1, Ratnagiri Appellant Respondent आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2021-22 is directed against the order dated 23.05.2025 of Addl/JCIT(A), Kochi passed u/s.250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) arising out of Rectification order 12.07.2023 passed u/s.154 of the Act. 2. The only grievance of the assessee is that ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of CPC making the addition of Rs.19,28,328/- which has already been disclosed and offered to tax/claimed exemption in the income-tax return and therefore the same amounts to double addition. 3. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. We note that the assessee is an Appellant by : Shri Sharad Vaze Respondent by : Shri Harshit Bari Date of hearing : 19.08.2025 Date of pronouncement : 12.09.2025 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1655/PUN/2025 Wahida Abubkar Mukadam 2 individual and return of income for A.Y. 2021-22 has been filed on 31.01.2022 declaring income of Rs.12,11,400/-. Assessee is carrying on the profession of running a Pathological Laboratory. Since the profit shown on the professional income was below 50%, the books of account were audited and Audit Report u/s.44AB of the Act has been furnished. The CPC while processing the return observed that in the Tax Audit Report in item 16(d) the Auditor reported about certain receipt not credited to the profit and loss account and the same are as under : Sr. No. Name Amount Rs. 1 Salary from Yogita Dental College 2,18,000 2 Rent Nerul Flat 1,54,000 3 Rent from Mukadam Landmark 2,05,700 4 Savings Interest 10,628 5 Agricultural Income 5,00,000 6 Maturity of LIC Policy 2,90,000 7 Gifts from Relatives 5,50,000 Total Rs. 19,28,328 4. Before us, ld. Counsel for the assessee first referred to the computation of income placed at pages 3 to 8 of the paper book and submitted that all the above referred items mentioned in the Tax Audit Report which have been captured by CPC for the purpose of making the alleged disallowance have already been shown under the respective heads of Taxable Income as well as Exempt income. We find that salary of Rs.2,18,000/- has been shown under the head ‘Income from salary’, rent income at Rs.1,54,000/- and Rs.2,05,700/- has been shown under the head ‘Income from House Property’, Interest income of Rs.10,628/- has been shown under the head ‘Income from other sources, Agricultural Income and Maturity of LIC amounts at Rs.5.00 lakh and Rs.2.90 lakh have been shown Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1655/PUN/2025 Wahida Abubkar Mukadam 3 under the ‘Exempt income’ and lastly the gifts from relatives have been shown in the capital account and is claimed to be exempt as having been received from the relatives referred in section 56 of the Act. We therefore find that the said disallowance has been made by CPC only on the basis of Tax Audit Report. Since the assessee has prepared a single balance sheet for the statement of affairs of the individual account as well as the business concern of renting the Pathological Laboratory, the income in the individual name as well as the capital receipt items have been directly shown in the capital account and having not been credited in the profit and loss account of the Pathological Laboratory. We are therefore of the considered view that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable and the same deserves to be deleted. Finding of ld.CIT(A) is reversed and the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on this 12th day of September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VINAY BHAMORE) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; \u0001दनांक / Dated : 12th September, 2025. Satish Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1655/PUN/2025 Wahida Abubkar Mukadam 4 आदेश क\u0002 \u0003ितिलिप अ ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant. 2. \u000eयथ / The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “SMC” ब\u0014च, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 5. गाड\u0004 फ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "