2021 (8) TMI 1040

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the ld. AO (CPC) in passing the order U/s 154 of the IT Act, 1961. 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the ld. AO (CPC) in considering the business income as 'income from other sources' of Rs. 6,49,849/- which resulted the double addition. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in not considering the submission of the assessee made before him. 4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition on the ground that appellant has filed the wrong ITR form which resulted the miscarriage of justice. 5. The assessee craves your indulgence to add, ame....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....to dispose off by this consolidated order. 6. The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee has reiterated the same arguments as were raised before the ld. CIT(A) and has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by saying that the assessee has filed the wrong ITR and his income was wrongly declared under presumptive scheme. In this regard he has submitted that the assessee has filed ITR-4 which is applicable for individual who is engaged in the business and profession. The assessee's business was insurance and saving scheme's commission business income and same has been declared in the income tax return. The assessee has not opted any presumptive scheme as mentioned by the ld. CIT(A) in his appellat....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... -259930     389920.00 From the record, we noticed that the assessee has declared the above business income earned from LIC and post office commission under the head profit from business & profession in ITR-4 filed by the assessee but the CPC has processed the return filed by the assessee by adding Rs. 6,49,850/- under the head income from other source. Subsequently, on an application filed U/s 154 of the IT Act, 1961, the said application was rejected. Further, the ld. CIT(A) had also dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee had filed a wrong ITR and his income was wrongly declared under presumptive scheme. Whereas on the contrary, the ld. AR has specifically submitted that the assessee has ....