Kalebudde Logistics Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
While processing return of income u/s 143(1), the CPC noticed that the assessee has not declared any income under the head Income from House Property and Income from other sources. Accordingly, adjustments were made in the intimation by including house property income of Rs.20,38,470/- and income from other sources of Rs.2,07,425/-.
The Ld A.R submitted that the adjustment made to house property income amounting to Rs.20,38,470/- is included in the Godown sub-letting charges of Rs.29,12,100/-. Similarly the adjustment made to income under the head Income from other sources is the commission income of Rs.2,07,125/- included in the gross receipts. Accordingly, the Ld A.R submitted that both these amounts have already been included in the gross receipts on which income has been estimated by the assessee. Accordingly, he submitted that there is no necessity to make any further adjustment and the same leads to double assessment of same income.
ITAT find merit in the submissions made by the assessee. As pointed by him, the assessee has already included the house property income and commission income in its gross receipts. In that case, there is no necessity to make any separate adjustments again. The CPC has taken the view that the said incomes are assessable as house property income/other sources income. However, the assessee has considered the same as business income. The view so taken by CPC is debatable one. In any case, it is established that there is no omission on the part of the assessee to include both the income in its gross receipts. Hence the adjustments made by CPC u/s 143(1) are liable to be deleted. Accordingly, I set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the adjustments of Rs.20,38,470/- and Rs.2,07,425/-made in the intimation given u/s 143(1) of the Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 6-122021 passed by Ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi and it relates to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee is aggrieved by the addition of Rs.20,38,470/- made to the income declared under the head Income from House property and Rs.2,07,425/- made to the income declared under the head income from other sources.
2. I heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of warehousing, logistics and undertaking clearing and forwarding operations. The assessee declared its income under the head “income from business”. The gross turnover of the assessee was Rs.1,07,75,739/- and the assessee declared income @ 9% u/s 44AD of the Act. It so happened that the payers of the rental income and commission income had deducted tax at source from the payments made by them. While processing return of income u/s 143(1), the CPC noticed that the assessee has not declared any income under the head Income from House Property and Income from other sources. Accordingly, adjustments were made in the intimation by including house property income of Rs.20,38,470/- and income from other sources of Rs.2,07,425/-.
3. The assessee filed appeal before ld CIT(A) mentioning above facts. The Ld CIT(A) took the view that the assessee should have declared income under the head Income from house property and income from other sources, instead of considering them as business income. Accordingly, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal.
4. I notice that the assessee has furnished break-up details of is gross receipts as under before Ld CIT(A):-
