JCIT(OSD), KOLKATA vs. TOTAL AGRI CARE CONCERN(P)LTD, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 438/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 October 2023AY 2020-212 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim and delete the addition if found correct. The Tribunal found no merit in the revenue's appeal, considering it a waste of resources.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made a disallowance of Rs. 70,57,2,643/- on account of inadmissible expenditure. The assessee contended that this amount was never claimed as expenditure but was shown as a contingent liability for a disputed excise duty demand.

What were the issues?

Whether a contingent liability shown on account of a disputed excise duty demand, which was not claimed as expenditure, can be disallowed under Section 37.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 37,Section 143(1),Section 154,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

order : October 16, 2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the revenue against the order dated 05.12.2022 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 assessing officer\CPC, while processing the return of the assessee under section 143(1) of the income tax act, made it disallowance of Rs.7 057 2,643/- on account of inadmissible expenditure under section 37 of the act. The assessee filed rectification application u/s 154 of the act stating therein that since the assessee has not claimed the said amount as expenditure, therefore, no disallowance was attracted of this amount. However, the said claim of the assessee was rejected by the AO/CPC.

1.

Assessment Year: 2020-21 M/s Total Agri Care Concern Pvt. Ltd 3. Before the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee again claimed that he has never claimed the said amount as expenditure. That the said amount was shown as contingent liability on account of disputed excise duty demand. That the assessee has never claimed as expenditure in the profit and loss account. The Ld. CIT(A), considering the aforesaid contentions of the assessee, directed the assessing officer to verify the claim of the assessee and if the same is found correct, then to delete the addition, and if found contrary, then to confirm the addition.

4.

After hearing the Ld. representatives of the parties, we do not find any merit in the appeal of the revenue. This appeal by the revenue is nothing but wastage of the Govt. resources without application of mind.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is here by dismissed. Kolkata, the 16th October, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- [�गर�श अ�वाल /Girish Agrawal] [संजय गग� /Sanjay Garg] लेखा सद�य/Accountant Member �या�यक सद�य/Judicial Member Dated: 16.10.2023. RS Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. JCIT(OSD), Circle-11(1), Kolkata 2. M/s Total Agri Care Concern Pvt. Ltd 3.CIT (A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR),

More judgments on Section 37

All 4,334 judgments and leading authorities on Section 37 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →