##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA

Before

SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

&

SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.: 2166/KOL/2025

Assessment Year: 2018-19

Shree Govind Property & D.C.I.T., Circle-5(1), Kolkata

Investments Pvt. Ltd. Vs.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

PAN: AADCS8892E

Appearances:

Assessee represented by : Sanjay Dixit, Adv. and

Rajeev Agrawal, Adv.

Department represented by : S.B. Chakraborthy, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR.

Date of concluding the hearing : 27-November-2025

Date of pronouncing the order : 28-January-2026

ORDER

PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter

referred to as Ld. ’CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for AY 2018-19 dated 28.07.2025.

2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following

grounds of appeal:

“1.0 For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order dated

28/07/2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. by the

Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal

Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ’Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and

therefore liable to be set aside.

2.0 For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed

to appreciate that the appellant had, by mistake, reflected the Exempt Long

Term Capital Gains of Rs. 28,80,542/ in its return of income under the head

Profits and Gains of Business and Profession instead of the correct business

Page | 2

ITA No.: 2166/KOL/2025

Assessment Year: 2018-19

Shree Govind Property & Investments Pvt. Ltd.

income of Rs. 58,525/- and had duly filed a revised computation of income

during the assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings which was

solely rejected for the reason that allowing such claim at the stage of the

assessment proceedings would result in assessed income being lower than

the returned income. Such observation of the Ld. CIT(A) is arbitrary and bad

in law. That the Ld. CIT(A) further failed to appreciate that the mistake of

the appellant was apparent from records as the amount of Rs. 28,80,542

was shown twice, once under exempt income and again inadvertently under

business income.

3.0 For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CITIA) erred

in law in rejecting the revised computation of income solely on the ground

that the appellant has not filed a revised return in accordance with the

provisions of Section 139(5) of the Act and therefore permitting such claim

beyond the statutory time limit for revising return is not permissible. Such

action of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law.

4.0 For that on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) failed

to appreciate that an inadvertent mistake made by the appellant can be

corrected in the course of the assessment proceedings by filing a revised

computation of income.

5.0 That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that no tax can be levied or

collected without the authority of law as envisaged in Article 265 of the

Constitution of India.

6.0 For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed

to appreciate the settled law that assessing authorities are bound to

compute the correct income only and collect only legitimate tax without

taking advantage of the mistake of the appellant. assessee.

7.0 The appellant craves leaves to add to, amend, modify, rescind,

supplement, or alter any of the grounds stated hereinabove either before or

at the time of the hearing of this appeal.”

3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company had filed its

return of income declaring total income of ₹1,60,39,320/- for AY 2018-

19. The case was selected for limited scrutiny under Computer Assisted

Scrutiny Selection (in short ’CASS’) for the reason "Large business loss

set off against other heads of income." Accordingly, notices u/s 143(2)

and 142(1) of the Act were issued. Later on a fresh notice u/s 142(1) of

the Act date