SAKAR GRANITO (INDIA) P. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 123/AHD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad27 April 2026AY 2017-184 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had voluntarily added back the excise duty on a protective basis in a subsequent return to claim deduction in the year of payment. Therefore, the addition under Section 43B in the current year was not justified.

What were the facts?

The assessee company declared a loss for AY 2017-18. The Assessing Officer noticed unpaid excise duty and added it back under Section 43B. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, and the assessee appealed.

What were the issues?

Whether unpaid excise duty could be added back under Section 43B when the assessee had already accounted for it in a subsequent year for deduction upon payment, and whether the reopening under Section 147 was valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43B,Section 147,Section 148,Section 149,Section 151

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: DR. DRR KUMAR & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, AR
For Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. D.R
Pronounced: 27.04.2026

PER: SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi on 17.11.2025 for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:

“1. The learned CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in upholding order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B by the Assessing Officer which is without any valid juri iction and without complying with mandatory statutory conditions specified in the Act to initiate assessment proceedings. The assessment so made is invalid, void ab-initio and, therefore, requires to be quashed.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding action of Assessing Officer in treating unpaid excise duty of Rs. 1,60,99,607/- as escaped income within the meaning of section 147 of the Act without appreciating that year in which loss was ultimately got setoff, there was no variation in the amount of unabsorbed loss. Asst.Year–2017-18

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law upholding action of Assessing Officer to tax excise duty of Rs. 1,60,99,607/- u/s. 43B being unpaid upto the due date of filing of return u/s 139 in AY 2017-18 but without excluding the same in AY 2019-20 in which payment was made by no claim for deduction was made.”

3.

The assessee is a private limited company and filed return of income on 31.10.2017 declaring total loss for A.Y. 2017-18 at Rs. (-)3,62,60,183/-. The assessment was completed under Section 143(3) of the Act on 12.10.2019 assessing the total income of Rss. (-)3,62,60,183/-. The Assessing Officer noticed that as per Sr. No. 26(BXb) of 3CD report, there was an Excise Tax of Rs. 1,60,99,607/- which was unpaid upto the due date of return of income for the year. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was of the view that Section 43B should be invoked and the said income should be added. From the perusal of the computation of income the said excise duty was not added back to the income of the assessee, thus, resulting into underassessment to the tune of Rs. 1,60,99,607/-. After issuing statutory notices the assessee filed details. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,60,99,607/- under Section 43B of the Act.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 148 on 13.04.2021 the reasons recorded for reopening of assessment did not satisfy the condition specified in Section 149(1)(b) as stood on the date of issuance of notice under Section 148. The Ld. AR submitted that though condition specified in Section 149(1)(b) and Section 151 were not satisfied yet the assessee furnished return under Section 148 declaring total loss of Rs. 2,01,60,576/- which was originally assessed at Rs. 3,62,60,183/- Asst.Year–2017-18 which was to be disallowed in assessment year 2017-18 under Section43B and to be allowed in the year 2019-20 at the time of making actual payment. Thus, the assessee made this disallowance in the return under Section148 with the understanding that the Assessing Officer will rectify return furnish for A.Y. 2019-20 by granting deduction under Section 43B on payment basis of Rs. 1,60,99,607/- which the assessee did not claim while furnishing return of income.

6.

The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. From the perusal of record, it appears that the assessee furnish a return declaring loss of Rs. 2,01,60,576/- after voluntarily adding back the said excise duty on a protective basis so that the deduction could be availed in the A.Y. 2019-20. The assessee has paid the said amount for A.Y. 2019-20. Thus, the reduced loss in the A.Y. 2017-18 does not suffice to make addition under Section 43B in the current year.

8.

In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 27/04/2026 (DR. BRR KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 27/04/2026 TANMAY, Sr. PSITA No. 123/Ahd/2026 Asst.Year–2017-18 आदेश की "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

2.

""थ" / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु" / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु"(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

More judgments on Section 43B

All 7,161 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →