9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (8) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase also, the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) should have verified the financial records of the assessee of earlier assessment years and after due verification, they could have identified the mistake, but they failed to reconcile the actual capital and investment of the assessee. After considering the above facts on record, we are of the view that tax practitioner had made the above inadvertent mistake while filing the return of income which is not the real capital and investment of the assessee. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made under section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. - ITA No.6128/Mum./2017 - - - Dated:- 2-8-2021 - Shri C.N. Prasad, Judicial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The assessee stated that in the return of income filed for the assessment year 2013 14, the assessee has shown income of ₹ 2,05,230 and self assessment tax paid at ₹ 600, but no capital account balance of ₹ 2,61,88,228, was declared in return of income. The assessee submitted that the income shown of ₹ 2,05,230 is the right income for the A.Y. 2013 14 and the discrepancy of ₹ 1,90,000 as per the return of income was wrong and by mistake the Authorised Representative of the assessee has filed the return of income declaring income of ₹ 1,90,000. But when the assessee realized the mistake, immediately after eight days the assessee had filed revised return of income on 9th October 2013. The Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... te authority. 5. Before the learned CIT(A), the Authorised Representative of the assessee submitted that his Accountant Shri Manoj Dubey and Shri Nilesh Thapa, while filing the return of income of the assessee for the year under consideration have wrongly shown the proprietor s capital at ₹ 2,61,88,227. The learned Authorised Representative further submitted that Shri Suresh Bhatija, the assessee s authorized Income Tax Practitioner due to his ill health could not represent the case properly before the Assessing Officer and resultantly the impugned addition was made by the Assessing Officer. To this effect, the Authorised Representative of the assessee has also filed an Affidavit duly sworn by the assessee and Shri Suresh Bhatija, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddenly my capital lies in crore due to mistake of my I.T.P. (Income Tax Practitioner) Mr. Suresh M. Bathija is suffering from (Prostate Cancer) and he was operated for cancer because of this he cannot attain his office at that time so in the absence of my I.T.P. his staff by mistake filed my return for A.Y. 2013 14, I am also attaching my statement of income bank statement along with this affidavit. The actual capital is ₹ 8,89,148/ as on 31/03/2013 but inadvertently the capital shown as ₹ 2,61,88,228 which is totally wrong and mistake done by my I.T.P. (Income Tax Practitioner) Mr. Suresh M. Bathija staff while filing my return for A.Y. 2013 14. As I have state above that I have not invested in any government and other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the assessee has miserably failed in justifying his claim that the figures disclosed in the return of income related to proprietor s capital, fixed block assets, investments in Government and other securities were mistakes and not a form of capital introduced well matched with the investments for some ulterior motives. Hence, the addition of ₹ 2,61,88,228, u/s 68 of the Act was confirmed. The assessee being aggrieved by this order of the learned CIT(A), is in further appeal before the Tribunal. 7. Having considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the material on record, we find that the tax practitioner of the assessee, while filing online return of income for the year under con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 143(3) of the Act and accepted only the real income by cross verifying the details of previous year data. But it was not done in the case of the assessee. We notice that the mistake made by the tax consultant at the time of filing return of income that he had cut and pasted the same capital and investment details of some other assessee and this mistake was appreciated and taken note by the respective Assessing Officers in the case of Ms. Leena Joseph Lopes, and Shri Jani Navani. Even in this case also, the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) should have verified the financial records of the assessee of earlier assessment years and after due verification, they could have identified the mistake, but they failed to reconcile the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
