TAMILNADU WATER INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 968/CHNY/2022Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 January 2023AY 2020-20212 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the impugned adjustment to be prima facie unwarranted. It directed the AO to verify the assessee's submissions and, if correct, delete the adjustment.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction for late payment of gratuity fund, which was disallowed in earlier years but paid in the current year. A provision for gratuity, which remained unpaid, was also debited and disallowed. The Tax Auditor's report, however, netted these amounts, leading to an erroneous disallowance by the CPC.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance made by the CPC due to an erroneous netting of gratuity payments by the Tax Auditor is justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

माननीय +ी वी. दुगा1 राव, �ाियक सद2 एवं माननीय +ी मनोज कुमार अ7वाल ,लेखा सद2 के सम9। BEFORE HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Tamilnadu Water Investment ADIT Company Ltd. CPC, Bangalore. बनाम/ 1st Floor, Polyhose Towers, Vs. No.86, Mount Road, Guindy, Chennai – 600 032. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AABCT-8153-B (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : ("#थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ�कीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri R. Viswanathan (FCA) – Ld. A.R "#थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar - (JCIT) – Ld. D.R सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date of Hearing : 12-01-2023 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 12-01-2023 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member): 1. In the aforesaid appeal for Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21, the sole issue that fall for our consideration is disallowance u/s 43B for Rs.14.67 Lacs. The Ld. AR submitted that impugned disallowance arises because of erroneous reporting by tax Auditor. The attention has been drawn to the fact that in computation income, the assessee claimed deduction for late payment of gratuity fund for Rs.27.95 Lacs which was disallowed in earlier years but paid in this year and therefore, the deduction of the same was claimed. At the same time, the assessee debited provision for gratuity for Rs.14.67 Lacs which remained unpaid and accordingly, the same was disallowed in the computation of income. However, Tax Auditor, reported net of the two i.e., Rs.13.27 Lacs in Form 3CD which led to impugned disallowance. Considering the same, CPC restricted allowable amount of Rs.27.95 Lacs to the extent of Rs.13.27 Lacs and made adjustment of Rs.14.67 Lacs while processing the return of income.

2.

Upon perusal of documents as placed on record, prima facie the impugned adjustment is unwarranted. Therefore, we direct Ld. AO to verify the fact as stated in assessee’s submissions as above. If the same is found to be correct, the impugned adjustment would stand deleted and necessary computations would follow.

3.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 12th January, 2023.

More judgments on Section 43B

All 7,161 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →