Case Law Details
Deutschland Transformers P. Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Chennai)
1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai dated 04.09.2020 in the matter of an intimation issued by Centralized Processing Center, Bangalore u/s 143(1) of the Act on 02.10.2019. In the intimation, the ‘business income’ has been enhanced by Rs.15.53 Lacs.
2. The Ld. AR drew attention to the computation of income and explained that the assessee earned income from House Property for 77 Lacs which was credited in the Profit & Loss Account. The assessee paid lease premium of Rs.15.53 Lacs for this property which was debited to Profit & Loss Account. Both these items were removed from ‘Business Income’ and net of the two i.e., Rs.61.47 Lacs was offered as Income from House Property. However, CPC computed variance of Rs.15.53 Lacs and enhanced the business income to that extent. The Ld. Sr. DR submitted that this fact may be verified by lower authorities.
3. Upon perusal of impugned order, it could be seen that Ld. CIT(A), without appreciating the actual facts leading to alleged variance, merely held that such an adjustment could have been made u/s 143(1)(a). Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before me.
4. Upon perusal of material on record, I find strength in the argument of Ld. AR. It could be seen that the assessee has removed the component of income as well as expenditure from ‘business income’ and offered the net of the two under Income from House Property. Therefore, there is no variance as alleged. This being so, the impugned adjustment as made by CPC is not sustainable on merits. I order so.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
