MANU KUMAR SHAHI,JAMSHEDPUR vs. ITO WARD-2(3), JAMSHEDPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8/RAN/2022Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi28 April 2023AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the Assessing Officer. The AO was directed to verify the claim of double addition and to allow the second issue if the assessee proves payees accounted for the amounts and paid taxes.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed a revised return, suo moto adding an amount for belated payment of employee's contribution to PF and ESIC. The CPC processed the return and made a similar addition, leading to a claim of double addition by the assessee. A second issue concerned disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) if payees had accounted for the amounts received.

What were the issues?

Whether a double addition was made for belated PF/ESIC contributions, and whether disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) is warranted if payees have accounted for the income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 139(5),Section 143(1),Section 40(a)(ia),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member and Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member Assessment Year: 2018-19 Manu Kumar Shahi…….…..…………..…...…......................……...…..….. Appellant 94, East Plant Basti, Burmanines, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand-831007. [PAN: BARPS6204E] vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Jamshedpur.……………………….……….…………….. Respondent Appearances by: Shri Nitin Pasari, Adv., appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Pranob Kumar Koley, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : March 01, 2023 Date of pronouncing the order : April 28, 2023 ORDER

Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:

1.

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 16.12.2021 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2.

The brief facts of the case are that the Assessee filed its return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act on 02.10.2018 claiming refund of Rs.2,80,810/-. Thereafter, return of income was revised under Section 139(5) on 18.02.2019 reducing the refund amount to Rs. 23,450/-. In the revised return, the appellant has suo moto added Rs.8,40,403/- on account of belated payment of employee's contribution to PF and ESIC. The revised return was processed under Section 143(1) on 1

Assessment Year: 2018-19 Manu Kumar Shahi 22.08.2019 of the Act by making impugned demand of Rs. 2,97,254/-. The claim of the assessee is that the assessee had suo moto added the amount of Rs.8,40,403/- by computing his income in the revised return of income on account of belated payment of employee's contribution to PF and ESIC and that the CPC while processing the return of the assessee had again added the said amount on account of belated deposit on PF and ESIC, therefore, it has amounted to double addition.

The second ground raised by the assessee is relating to disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. The claim of the assessee is that if the respective payees have taken into consideration the amount received from the assessee for the purpose of filing their income tax return and paying taxes on their income, then no addition would be warranted in the case of the assessee.

3.

The ld. DR has fairly agreed with the submissions of the ld. AR that the issues may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of the facts.

4.

In view of the above discussion, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction that the Assessing Officer will verify the claim of double addition on account belated deposit of employee’s/employer’s contribution to PF and ESIC. So far as the second issue is concerned, if the assessee will be able to produce on the record that the respective payees have taken into account the amount received from the assessee for the purpose computation of Assessment Year: 2018-19 Manu Kumar Shahi their income and due taxes have been paid on their income then no addition would be warranted on that issue also.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →