PREMIER ROADLINES LIMITED,DELHI vs. DCIT, CPC, BANGALORE
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that since the AO did not make any addition for unpaid gratuity in the final assessment order after due inquiry, the adjustment made by the CPC in the processing intimation does not survive. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to be relieved from this adjustment.
What were the facts?
The assessee's return of income for AY 2017-18 showed a disallowance of unpaid gratuity. However, the CPC made an adjustment for this amount. The Assessing Officer (AO), after inquiry, did not make any addition for unpaid gratuity in the final assessment order.
What were the issues?
Whether an adjustment made by the CPC in the processing intimation can sustain when the AO, in the regular assessment, does not make any addition on the same issue after due inquiry.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: Dr. B. R. R. KumarSh. Yogesh Kumar US
Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member:
The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)-7, New Delhi dated 11.09.2020.
Delay condoned.
An adjustment of Rs.8,81,042/- made by the CPC u/s 43B/40A(7) of the Act. The assessee has already offered the amount of unpaid gratuity which is evident from the reply filed by the assessee during regular proceedings for A.Y. 2017-18 vide letter dated 27.11.2019. The explanation of the assessee has been accepted by the AO in the Assessment Order passed u/s 143(3) dated 11.12.2019 wherein no addition on account of unpaid gratuity has been made by the AO after duly enquiring the same vide notices issued u/s 142(1) dated 27.09.2019 and 08.11.2019.
Since, no addition has been made on account of unpaid liability of Rs.8,81,042/- in the final assessment order, the adjustment made in the processing intimation does not survive and the assessee is entitled to be relieved from the adjustment made in the processing order when the AO making final assessment finds after examination of records that no addition on that account needs be made. It is a fact on record that the assessee company has disallowed the above provision of gratuity in the return of income as evident in the computation of income submitted before the AO vide letter dated 16.09.2016. Hence, the order of the ld. CIT(A) is liable to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 29/08/2022.
More judgments on Section 43B
- Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), ChennaiITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Private… vs The Dy CIT Circle 8(2)(1), MumbaiITA 8020/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Amritvarsha Industries Limited, Ambedkar… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 6481/DEL/2026[2010-2011]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2010-2011
- Karaj Singh, Haryana vs PCIT (Central) Gurgaon, GurgaonITA 642/CHANDI/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- ACIT, Mumbai vs Imp Powers Limited, MumbaiITA 4982/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026