Kirtikumar Champaklal Bhimani Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order dated 24 April 2025 passed by the CIT(A)-2, Jaipur, dismissing the appeal against the intimation issued under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year (AY) 2021–22. The intimation order dated 4 July 2022 determined the assessee’s total income at ₹21,40,950 and raised a tax demand of ₹3,50,980.
The assessee challenged the addition of ₹12,75,750 made to his income, contending that this represented rental income which was already offered under the head “Income from House Property” in the return of income. The sum had been separately reported in Clause 16(d) of Form 3CD but was not routed through the Profit & Loss account. The assessee claimed that the same income was taxed twice — once as house property income and again as business income — due to a misinterpretation of the audit report by CPC. The CIT(A) upheld the CPC’s order, treating the rental amount as business income in addition to house property income.
A second issue concerned the condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee’s appeal was delayed by 972 days. The assessee explained that the delay was unintentional and due to bona fide circumstances. He had filed a “disagreement response” against the intimation on 25 August 2022 via the income tax portal, stating that the rental income was already offered under “House Property.” Believing that this online response resolved the issue, and after subsequently receiving refunds for AY 2022–23 and AY 2023–24, the assessee presumed that no further action was required.
