TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (5) TMI 1644
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the sum of Rs. 16,04,850/- was offered as income under the head other sources and the same stood accepted as such, then such sum could not be again taxed as income u/s 115BBE of the Act 2 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has also failed to appreciate that the adjustment made was without jurisdiction and beyond the scope and ambit of the provisions contained in section 143(1) of the Act and thus unsustainable. 3 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that intimation dated 15.7.2019 is without reasons and therefore unreasonable is otherwise a nullity. 4 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that intimation dated 15.7.2019 was made without granting opportunity much less fair meaningful and effective opportunity and therefore such an intimation is otherwise vitiated." 2. Facts leading to the case in hand is the adjustment of Rs. 30,00,000/- made on account of inconsistency being found between the lottery income under Income from Other Sources head in return and Form 26AS. The Assessee had shown Rs. 30,00,000/-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y be mentioned here that it was a Organised Adventure in nature of trade game and Expenses of Rs. 16,04,850/- are been done for the purpose and the same are been claimed out of Rs. 30,00,000/-. So there is no inconsistency in reporting the income. I hereby request you to kindly go through the form and process the return. 2.1 Finally, intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act determining the income at Rs. 47,23,160/- as against the declared income of Rs. 17,23,160/- upon making addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- was passed vide order dated 15.07.2019. The same was in turn partly allowed by Ld. CIT(A) sustaining the addition of Rs. 16,04,840/-. Hence the instant appeal before us. 2.2. The CPC, Bengaluru made the addition by stating the following reasons: (vi) Income as per Form 26AS which has not been included in computing the total income in the return 143(1)(a)(vi) Sl. No. Head of Income Income as per income tax return Amount paid/ credited as per Form 26AS Variance Reason (i) (ii) (iii) (iv)=(ii)-(iii) (v) 1 Other sources 0 3000000 3000000 There is inconsistency between the lottery income under income from other sources head in the return and form 26AS 2.3 Ld. CIT(A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... E Total (1a+1b+1c+1div) 1e 31,44,860 2.6 It is further evident from the reply dated 19.03.2019 that the fact of total income declared by the assessee to the tune of Rs. 31,41,394/- shown under the head "Other sources" includes income of Rs. 30,00,000/- was clearly brought to the notice of the Department. 2.7 Further, that the expenses incurred to the tune of Rs. 16,04,850/- in Organised Adventure in nature of trade game was also claimed by the assessee out of the said income of Rs. 30,00,000/- earned by the assessee. In that view of the matter there is no inconsistency in reporting the income as was the case before the Ld. CIT(A) which has been further reiterated before us at the time of hearing of the instant appeal. 3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that adjustment u/s 143(1)(a)(vi) is only limited for the income which is appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income whereas the assessee admittedly included Rs. 30,00,000/- as income in his return of income filed u/s 139(1) of the Act which is further evident from Form 26AS appearing at page 35 of the PB filed before us. As the total income of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....It was also submitted by him that the addition of income appearing in Form 26AS which has not been included in computing the total income in return tantamount to double taxation as income has already been offered by the assessee as "Income from other sources" in the return of income filed by the assessee. Addition by the AO of the same income under Section 143(1) of the Act is, thus, not permissible in the eyes of law. While making this submission he relied upon the following decisions: - CIT v. Laxmi Pat Singhania v. CIT 72 ITR 291 (SC); - State of Uttar Pradesh v. Raja Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. 118 ITR 50 (SC); - Shree Sanad Textiles Industriesb Ltd. v. DCIT [ITA No. 995/Ahd./2014 dated 6.1.2020]; - A.K. Lumbers Ltd. v. ACIT [ITA 8761/Del/2019 dated 10.7.2020]; - New Pooja Jewellers v. AcIT [ITA 1329/Kol/2018 dated 26.2.2020]; - Bhagwant Merchants (P) Ltd. v. ITO [ITA 2614/Kol/2019 dated 29.5.2020]; - ITO v. Shaik Zameer [ ITA No. 1019/Hyd/2017 dated 18.5.2018]; & - Shri Ashok Desing Naik v. ITO [ITA No. 48/Bang/2019]. 3.3 The Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) 3.4 We have heard the rival submissions made by the respective parties and have also pe....