2024 (9) TMI 1185 - AT - Income Tax

Addition made in the Intimation passed u/s. 143(1) under the head income from business or profession - as mentioned by the CPC that the adjustment was made as the amount was shown in the tax audit report as any other items of income but the same was not mentioned in column No.5(D) of Part-A 01 Any other items of income in the return filed by the assessee - HELD THAT - Assessee has admitted (i) Rs. 2, 56, 485/- under the head income from house property ; (ii) Rs. 16, 800/- was admitted under the head income from house property and (iii) Rs. 2, 93, 988/- was admitted under the head income from other sources . Therefore since the assessee has admitted Rs. 3, 17, 980/- (aggregating of the items (i) to (v) as mentioned above) in the respective heads of income while filing the return of income it is not necessary to include these items in Part A 01 of the return of income under any other items of income . On this issue find merit in the argument of the Ld. AR. Therefore the addition made by the Ld. AO / CPC in the Intimation passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act under the head income from business or profession is not warranted and hence hereby set-aside the orders passed by the Ld. Revenue Authorities and delete the addition made by the Ld. AO. It is ordered accordingly.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order u/s. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2021-22 - Addition of Rs. 3,17,980 under 'income from business or profession' - Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) - Double taxation issue - Appeal before ITAT.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The appeal was filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2021-22, where an adjustment of Rs. 3,17,980 was made under 'income from business or profession' based on discrepancies in the tax audit report. The assessee had admitted this amount under 'income from other sources' and 'income from house property' in the return of income.

2. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal stating that subsequent actions had been taken based on the original intimation passed u/s. 143(1) and a subsequent order u/s. 154. The grounds of appeal were considered to cease to exist, leading to the dismissal of the appeal.

3. The ITAT analyzed the submissions made by both parties. The Authorized Representative argued that the addition was based on a mistake in the tax audit report, leading to double taxation. The Departmental Representative supported the orders of the Revenue Authorities.

4. Upon review, the ITAT found that the amount in question was reported in the tax audit report under 'any other income' but was correctly offered to tax under different heads in the return of income. The ITAT concluded that since the assessee had admitted the amount under the relevant heads while filing the return of income, the addition under 'income from business or profession' was not warranted.

5. Consequently, the ITAT allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, setting aside the orders passed by the Revenue Authorities and deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 8th August 2024.