Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
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:
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’).
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.
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.
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.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.