BRAITHWAITE & CO. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 1(1),, KOLKATA

For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has passed on 14.10.2025 which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal.

For that on the facts of the case, the A.O. (CPC) & Ld. CIT(A) are both erred regarding enhancement of deemed total income at Rs.6,18,39,738/- u/s. 115JB in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities facts and circumstances of the case.

For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in confirming the action of the AO in enhancing the taxable income u/s. 115JB of the act that is under MAT of Rs.23,96,58,065/- ignoring the revised Form 29B. As per revised Form 29B the deemed total income u/s. 115JB was Rs.17,78,81,327/- which resulted enhancement of taxable by Rs. 6,18,39,738/-.

For that on the facts of the case, the A.O. (CPC) & Ld. CIT(A) are both erred were not justified in ignoring the revised MAT audit report furnished by the Auditor on 22.12.2020 correcting the mistake committed in the original MAT audit report furnished on 20.10.2020 and supported by substantive evidence and depth explained, therefore, an assessee should not be penalized for a genuine, bonafide mistake made by the Auditor, although the intimation u/s. 143(1) passed on 20.12.2021, as such the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous, perverse and illegal.

For that on the facts of the case, that while issuing intimation u/s. 143(1) could not deny the claimed by the assessee as the same does not come within the ambit of "an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return" therefore, the adjustment made by the CPC was without juri iction, as such his finding is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal.

For that on the facts of the case, there is no reason cited in proposed adjustments u/s. 143(1)(a) issued by CPC about enhance MAT calculation or any query by the territorial juri ictional A.O. wherein the assessee company can be replied, therefore, summary assessment is ab-initio-void and illegal.

For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) was wrong in not deleting the addition as made by the AO on account of disallowance of Rs.12,68,793/- u/s. 36(1) (va) of the IT Act in respect of belated payment of employee's contribution towards ESI.

For that on the facts of the case, the A.O. was wrong in charging interest u/s.234B and 234C are mechanically wrong and illegal.

For that the appellant reserves the right to adduce any further ground or grounds, if necessary, at or before the hearing of the appeal."

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed the return of income for AY 2020-21 on 31.10.2020 declaring total income at ₹NIL/- and had filed Form No. 29B on 20.10.2020 computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act at ₹23,96,58,065/- for FY 2019-20. Subsequently, Form No. 29B was revised by the assessee on 22.12.2020 computing the book profit u/s 115JB of the Act at ₹17,78,18,327/-. The return of income was processed by the Assessing Officer (CPC) (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') u/s 143(1) of the Act on 20.12.2021 determining the total income of the assessee at ₹14,37,710/-. The Ld. AO made disallowance of ₹12,68,793/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of late deposit of employees' contribution towards ESI beyond the due dates specified in the respective welfare acts, and disallowance of ₹1,68,919/- u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act. Further, the Ld. AO computed the deemed total income of the assessee at ₹23,96,58,065/- u/s 115JB of the Act by considering the original Form No. 29B instead of the revised form. Aggrieved with the intimation, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) who observed that while the assessee had revised Form No. 29B, the return of income itself was not revised u/s 139(5) of the Act within the stipulated time limit to impact the MAT liability, and thus the Ld. AO's action of deeming the total income u/s 115JB of the Act at ₹23,96,58,065/- based on the original Form No. 29B was justified. Regarding the disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act, the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) noted that the employees' contribution to ESI was deposited beyond the prescribed due dates under the relevant acts, and relying on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., held that such belated payments cannot be allowed as a deduction. Accordingly, the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) confirmed the action of the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal before the Tribunal.

Rival contentions were heard and the submissions made have been examined. It was submitted by the Ld. AR that the return was filed correctly but Form No. 29B was erroneous, which was rectified on 17/12/2020. It was submitted that the return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 20/12/2021 and the revised Form No. 29B was available at the time of processing of the return.

We have considered the submissions made, gone through the facts of the case and perused the record and the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

Regarding the issue of employees' contribution to PF & ESI and the due date being mentioned erroneously in the return of income, since the issue needs examination of the due date and the actual date of payment, the findings of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) on this issue are set aside and the matter is remanded to the Ld. AO for examining the provisions of the relevant Acts and to consider whether the payments were made in time within the due date so as to allow the deduction to the assessee.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 6th July, 2026. [George Mathan] [Rakesh Mishra] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 06.07.2026 Bidhan (Sr. P.S.)

CIT-

CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata.

Guard File. //// By order