Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, PUNE
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY
आदेश / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:
This appeal preferred by the Revenue emanates from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-4, Pune dated 29.05.2017 for the assessment year 2012-13 as per the following grounds of appeal on record:
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.5,27,29,776/- made u/s.43B of the Act by the Assessing Officer despite the same amount shown as unpaid in tax audit report.
2. For these and such other grounds as may be urged at the time of hearing, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be vacated and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.
3. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above grounds of appeal during the course of Appellate Proceedings before the Hon’ble Tribunal.”
At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Though the notice was issued, there was no appearance from the side of the assessee. The submission of the Ld. DR is recorded and the case is heard on merits.
The crux of the grievance of the Revenue in this appeal is deletion of addition of Rs.5,27,29,776/- made u/s.43B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟) by the Assessing Officer despite the same amount shown as unpaid in tax audit report.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company carrying on the business of manufacturing Automotive Switches. The assessee has filed its return of income showing a loss at Rs.6,44,74,396/- on 30.09.2012. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found that in the Tax Audit Report [ Annexure E of Column 21(B)], the total amount of Rs.5,28,92,513/- was shown as unpaid. However, no such amount was disallowed in the computation of total income. The Assessing Officer, therefore, disallowed the same u/s.43B of the Act and added to the total income. The Assessing Officer at Para 11 of his order also scanned the copy of relevant portion of the Tax Audit Report of Annexure E and the same is reproduced herein below: Annexure E Liability incurred during the previous year Sr. Nature of Outstanding Amount Amount Whethe Clauses No. liability amount paid/set remaining r incurred off unpaid on passed during the before the due date through previous year due date of filing of P & L of filing return of return 1. Sales tax 36476784.00 0.00 36476784.00 No Any sum in the nature payable of tax, duty, cess or fee under any law 2. Sales Tax 420474.00 0.00 420474.00 No Any sum in the nature of tax, duty, cess or fee under any law 3. Professio 3179338.00 0.00 3179338.00 No Any sum in the nature nal Tax of tax, duty, cess or fee payable under any law
Provident 11558448.00 0.00 11558448.00 No Any sum payable by Fund way of contribution to payable any provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of employees
5. Interest 162737.00 0.00 162737.00 No Any sum payable as payable interest on any loan or borrowing from any scheduled bank
6. Bonus 1094732.00 0.00 1094732.00 No Any sum payable to an payable employee as bonus or commission for services rendered.
In the said chart, it is clearly written that outstanding amount incurred during previous year. Therefore, it is evident that total amount of Rs.5,28,92,513/- was shown as unpaid.
The Ld. CIT(Appeals) on the other hand held that these amounts pertain to opening balances. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) further observed that these amounts were considered by the assessee while filing return of income. In the scanned chart of the Tax Audit Report, it is clearly written that the amounts were incurred and remain unpaid as on the last date of previous year. The Ld. CIT(Appeals) having lost sight of this fact, simply accepted the submissions of the assessee that these amounts represent opening balances without verifying in detail this factual aspect. That the Ld. CIT(Appeals) passed the impugned order in gross negligence and superficially. In such scenario, the observation of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) that these amounts were the part of opening balances and were shown in the return of income, is not borne out of record.
Therefore, we are of the considered view, in the interest of justice, the matter should be restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(Appeals) for proper appreciation of facts and law. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and restore the matter back his file to re-adjudicate the issue while complying with the principles of natural justice and also for passing a speaking order corroborating with the facts of the case.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 04th day of January, 2021.