BOSTON SCIENTIFIC TECHNLOGY & ENGINEERING SERVICES PVT LTD ERST BOSTON SCIENTIFIC SERVICE PVT LTD,GURUGRAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of gratuity amounting to INR 2,75,331, without appreciating that the amount represents actual amount paid by the appellant and quantify by the Tax Auditor in Tax Audit report

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not deleting the consequential levy of interest under section 234B and section 234C of the Act.”

During proceedings before us the ld. Counsel of the assessee brought it to the notice of the Bench that appeal on grounds No.2, 4 and 5 are not pressed. Accordingly, they are dismissed as not pressed. 3. It was further argued by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the auditor while preparing tax audit report inadvertently reported the disallowance of provision for gratuity twice, once under Section 40A(7) of the Income Tax Act in clause 21(e) of Form 3CD and again under Section 43B of the Act in the clause 26(1)(B)(b) of Form 3CD which resulted in double disallowance of the same amount. He further submitted that the CPC Bengaluru while processing the return of income relied upon the tax audit report and accordingly issued an intimation under section 143(1) of the IT Act making an aggregate disallowance of Rs.5717786/- against the refund claimed of Rs.424470/-. The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the CPC a prayer was made by the Ld. Counsel that the matter should be remanded back to the AO for considering all the papers and decide the case accordingly. 4. Per contra the Ld. DR relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 3 | P a g e

We have considered the findings given by the Ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order and we have also considered the submissions and arguments made by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee. We think that in the fitness of things in order to verify the claim of the appellant it will be appropriate to get this issue verified by the AO. Accordingly, this case is remanded back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 06.08.2026.