AZVI CONSTRUCTION PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORPORATE WARD 1(3), CHE, CHENNAI

The sole grievance of the assessee in captioned appeal is adjustment of Rs.12.30 Lacs as made by CPC while processing the return of income u/s 143(1).

The Ld. AR submitted that disallowance u/s 40A(3) for Rs.12.22 Lacs was not called for since the same was only a misreporting by the Tax Auditor. The Ld. AR submitted that the error has been rectified by Auditor in the manual report. On adjustment of Rs.0.08 Lacs, Ld.AR submitted that this is double disallowance only. Having heard rival submissions and upon perusal of case records, our adjudication would be as under. 3. Upon perusal of para 8.6 of impugned order, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed adjustment of Rs.12.22 Lacs merely on the ground that the same was in accordance with the Tax Audit Report. In para 9.4 of the order, Ld. CIT(A) held that disallowance of Rs.0.08 Lacs was not offered by the assessee which run contrary to the submissions of Ld. AR. 4. We are of the considered opinion that simply because there was error in reporting by Tax Auditor, the same would not call for automatic disallowance. Similarly, as per submissions, the disallowance of Rs.0.08 Lacs is double disallowance. Considering the same, we restore the appeal back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication as aforesaid. The assessee is directed to provide the requisite details and substantiate its case. No other arguments have been made before us. 5. The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 19th December, 2023.