Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Shri Sushilkumar Roshanlal Jain,, ... vs The Acit, Circle-12,, Ahmedabad on 22 December, 2017
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद यायपीठ 'ए', अहमदाबाद ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL " A " BENCH, AHMEDABAD सव ी राजपाल यादव, या यक सद य एवं द प कुमार के डया, लेखा सद य के सम । BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3479/Ahd/2015 ( नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri Sushilkumar Roshanlal बनाम/ The ACIT Jain Vs. Circle-1(2) 16, Alishan Complex Ahmedabad Danilimda Ahmedabad- 380 022 थायी ले खा सं . /जीआइआर सं . / PAN/GIR No. : AARPJ 4244 J (अपीलाथ% /Appellant) .. ( &यथ% / Respondent) अपीलाथ% ओर से /Appellant by : Shri S.N. Divatia, AR &यथ% क( ओर से/Respondent by : Shri James Kurian, Sr.DR ु वाई क( तार ख / सन Date of Hearing 19/12/2017 घोषणा क( तार ख /Date of Pronounce ment 22 /12/2017 आदे श / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM:
The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad [CIT(A) in short] dated 30/09/2015 arising in the rectification order passed under s.154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 22/03/2013 by the ITA No.3479/Ahd/2015 Sushilkumar R. Jain vs. ACIT Asst.Year -2008-09 -2- Assessing Officer (AO) with reference to assessment order passed under s.143(3) dated 08/12/2010 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2008-09.
2. Briefly stated, the assessee is an individual inter alia declared rental income of Rs.16,09,032/- from Reliance Insurance Co.Ltd. while filing its return of income. The AO completed regular assessment under s.143(3) on 08/12/2010 where the rental income offered by the assessee was accepted. Subsequent to the assessment, the AO issued notice under s.154 of the Act alleging that TDS details reflected rental income of Rs.26,80,412/- instead of Rs.16,09,032/- reported by the assessee. The difference of Rs.10,71,380/- was accordingly added to the assessed income vide order under s.154 dated 22/03/2013.
3. In the first appeal, the CIT(A) also observed that the income as per TDS certificate was not disclosed in the return of income which is clearly a mistake apparent from record. It was further observed that AO was not involved in any long drawn process and merely found the mistake in the document and return filed by the assessee that the income shown in the TDS certificate was not disclosed in the return of income. The CIT(A) accordingly upheld the action of rectification carried out by the AO under s.154. However, on facts, granted certain reliefs from the addition and retained rectification to the extent of Rs.4,64,000/- only.
4. Still aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal.
ITA No.3479/Ahd/2015Sushilkumar R. Jain vs. ACIT Asst.Year -2008-09 -3-
5. The Ld.AR for the assessee Mr.S.N.Divatia raised the legal point that the aforesaid rectification involves examination of several documents and is complex in nature. The Ld.AR submitted that such long drawn process for executing rectification is not within the ambit of section 154 of the Act. The Ld.AR accordingly urged for cancellation of the order passed under s.154 of the Act.
6. The Ld.DR relied upon the order of the CIT(A).
7. We have perused the orders of the authorities below. After the completion of the assessment, the AO noticed from the TDS details that corresponding rent has not been correctly been reported. The mismatch between actual rent declared by the assessee and the rent credited in the account of assessee by the tenants as per TDS details was sought to be rectified under s.154 of the Act. We do not find any irregularity in the action of the AO in so far as scope of authority under s.154 of the Act is concerned. In our view, the AO is capable of rectifying the mistake apparent on records. The mismatch between actual rent declared and as per TDS certificate are manifest on records. The subsequent quantification may be altered on consideration of the reply of the assessee for which opportunity was granted. The CIT(A) in our view has correctly affirmed the action of the AO subject to modification in the quantification of error. We thus decline to interfere with the order of the CIT(A).
ITA No.3479/Ahd/2015Sushilkumar R. Jain vs. ACIT Asst.Year -2008-09 -4-
8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 22/ 12 /2017
Sd/- Sd/-
(राजपाल यादव) ( द प कुमार के डया)
या यक सद य लेखा सद य
(RAJPAL YADAV) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA )
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ahmedabad; Dated 22/ 12 /2017
ट .सी.नायर, व. न.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS
आदे श क ! त#ल$प अ%े$षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ% / The Appellant
2. &यथ% / The Respondent.
3. संबं5धत आयकर आयु7त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयु7त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-6, Ahmedabad
5. 8वभागीय त न5ध, आयकर अपील य अ5धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER, स&या8पत त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad
1. Date of dictation .20.12.17 (dictation-pad 8- pages attached at the end of this appeal-file)
2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member ...20.12.17
3. Other Member...
4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S.................
5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement......
6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S.......22.12.17
7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk.....................22.12.17
8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk..........................................
9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order..........................
10. Date of Despatch of the Order..................