AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 1088
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tsar has erred in law and on facts in holding that AO was rightly initiating the provisions of section 148 on the basis of audit objection completely ignoring the fact that the AO included the Pr. CIT-I, Amritsar in his allocated report to the CIT (Audit) that audit objection on the basis of which provision of section 148 were initiated at no locus standee since it was case of only clerical error in online filing of ITR 5 having no bearing on the returned income and assessed income. 3. That the ld. CIT(A)-I, Amritsar has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 14117217 made by AO being the amount of unexplained addition of Rs. 14117217 in the capital account of the partners completely ignoring the fact that addi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is heard and disposed off. " 3. The sole issue disputed as per amended grounds, in this appeal is regarding addition of Rs. 1,41,17,217 confirmed by CIT(A) in reassessment proceedings on account of alleged unexplained addition to the capital account of the partners. 4. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition in summary manner while adjudicating ground No. 2 before him as follows: "6. I have gone through the grounds of appeal, submission and assessment order. Ground No. 1 to 3:- As per facts the case was reopened u/s. 148 by the AO after proper application of mind and not only on the basis of audit objection. Fu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....quires no adjudication. 8. In the result the appeal is dismissed. 5. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A)-I, Amritsar has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 14117217 in summary fashion, on the ground that there was unexplained addition of Rs. 14117217 in the capital account of the partners completely ignoring the fact that addition to the capital a/c of the partners was only Rs. 1450000 which was duly explained at the time of original assessment and the balance amount was only a clerical error in the e-filed return of income. In support, he has filed written submissions as under: 1. The basic issue in this appeal is regarding addition of Rs. 1,41,17,217 confirmed by....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of two units were filed before AO & CIT(A) and they are placed at page 49 to 52 of the Paper Book. 7. It was further explained that Rs. 1,26,67,216 is the "Inter Branch Balance" appearing on the Assets side of Balance Sheet of R.S. Builders against the name of Branch office R.S. Residency duly highlighted. The same amount is appearing on the Liability side of Balance Sheet of R.S. Residency under the head "R.S. Builders (Head Office) and duly highlighted. 8. Actually, while filling up the e-return Form 5 the figures of two Balance Sheet and Profit & Loss A/c are required to be consolidated and only consolidated figures are to be given and not unit wise. 9. And while consolidating the two Balance Sheets the Inter ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of clerical error while filling up the e-return which comprises of Rs. 1,26,67,216 being the contra inter branch balance appearing in the two balance sheets of the two units and the actual addition of capital of Rs. 14,50,000 which was duly explained to the AO during the course of original assessment proceedings. 15. Hence the addition needs to be deleted. 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR supported the impugned order and he contended that proceedings u/s. 148 were not initiated on the basis of audit objections but after proper application of mind by AO. The ld. CIT(A) while upholding the initiation of proceedings u/s. 148 relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT V P.V.S. Beedies Pvt. Ltd. 237 ITR 13 an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rror in the return of income e-filed where in the Inter Branch Balance of Rs. 12667216 was inadvertently included in the capital of partners. The assessee had also filed copies of capital accounts of partners as well as copies of Balance Sheets of Branch and Head Office, copy of e-filed return of income. 11. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) without considering the assessee's submissions and the necessary evidence filed, has confirmed the addition by simply passing a summary order involving addition Rs. 1,41,17,217 holding that the assessee did not submit any evidence of capital during the course of assessment proceedings. In our view, the CIT(A) ought to have examined and verified the veracity of the assessee's written submissions/evidences ....