9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1185X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... operty 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 accordingl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f income in the return filed by the assessee. Thus, the Ld. AP / CPC made addition of Rs. 3,17,980/- under the head income from business or profession and passed the intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Further, the Ld. AO / CPC has also levied interest of u/s. 234B and 234C of the Act. Aggrieved by the order passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: In view of the facts since the original intimation passed u/s. 143(1) by CPC on 05/07/2022 has been acted upon and subsequent order u/s. 154 dated 22/12/2022 has been passed by the CPC the grounds of present appeal cease to exist therefore this present ground of ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nadvertently reported under column 16(d) a sum of Rs. 3,17,980/- as any other income but not credited to the Profit Loss Account. However, these amounts were not actually in the nature of business profit and therefore they were rightly offered to tax by the assessee under the relevant heads ie., income from other sources (Rs. 2,93,988/-) and income from house property (Rs. 16,800/-). Therefore, the Ld. AR pleaded that the addition of Rs. 3,17,980/- is not warranted as the same amounts to double taxation and therefore the addition of Rs. 3,17,980/- may kindly be deleted. 6. On the other hand, the Learned Departmental Representative [ Ld. DR ] heavily relied on the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities and argued in support of the same. 7. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce 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 I find merit in the argument of the Ld. AR. Therefore, I am of the considered view that 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 I hereby set-aside the orders passed by the Ld. Revenue Authorities and delete the addition made by the Ld. AO. It is ordered accordingly. 8. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
