A2DYA MILK AND ORGANIC PRODUCTS PRIVATE LIMITED,PATNA vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 158/PAT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Patna20 May 2026AY 2020-215 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT noted that legal grounds raised by the assessee were not adjudicated by the CIT(A). Considering the interest of justice, the ITAT remitted the issue back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on legal grounds and merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return was processed by the CPC, which made disallowances under sections 40A(3), 36(1)(va), and 43B. The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal. Aggrieved, the assessee appealed to the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the adjustments made by the CPC under section 143(1) were beyond its scope and jurisdiction, and whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated all grounds of appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 36(1)(va),Section 43B,Section 40A(3),Section 139(1),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA BENCH, PATNA

Hearing: 21.04.2026Pronounced: 20.05.2026

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH, PATNA (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA) SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No. 158/PAT/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

A2Dya Milk and Organic Vs. Assistant Director of Products Private Limited, Income-tax, 201, 136, Annapurna Bhawan Centralized Processing Kurji, Patliputra Telephone Centre, Bangalore, Exchange Road, Patna – Bihar Income Tax Department, - 800013 CPC, Post Box No. 1, [PAN: AARCA2749Q] Electronic City Post Office, Bangalore – 560100, Karnataka APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Aabgina Chishti, AR Revenue by : Manav Adak, Sr. DR

Date of hearing : 21.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 20.05.2026

O R D E R PER LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Ld. Addl/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Gurugram

2 ITA No. 158/PAT/2025 A2Dya Milk and Organic Products Private Limited [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 31.01.2025, DIN & order No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1072792421(1) on the following grounds of appeal:

“1. That on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the impugned order dated 31.01.2025 passed by the Additional Joint Commissioner Income-Tax, Appeals-1, Gurgram (the CIT(A)") in confirming the additions made by the Assistant Director of Income-tax, Centralized Processing Centre, Bangalore ('CPC") in the intimation issued under section 143(1) of the Income- tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') is without jurisdiction and bad in law. 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that adjustments made are beyond the scope of adjustments specified under section 143(1) of the Act and is consequentially without jurisdiction, bad in law and liable to be deleted Re: Addition of Rs. 1.87, 394/-under section 36(1)(va) of the Act. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the order passed by the CPC is dated 23.12.2021 i.e. it is prior in time than the date of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. vs CIT: 448 ITR 518 dated 12.10.2022, ergo the issue at hand was debatable on the date of order passed by the CPC and accordingly the said order is, without jurisdiction, bad in law and liable to be quashed. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) and the AO has erred, both on facts and in law in following the reasoning given in the decision of DRP in the case of the appellant for AY 2017-18 without appreciating the merits and facts of the case while making the addition of Rs. 2,12,50,158 under section 35(2AB) of the Act. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amendments in the provisions of section 36(1)(va) as well as section 43B of the Act were introduced vide Finance Act, 2021 and were applicable from AY 2021-22 and not the AY under consideration Le AY 2020-21. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in lave, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that employees contribution had been deposited before the due date of filing return of income as prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act and the same is, therefore, an allowable expenditure. Re: Addition of Rs.1,08,47,839 under section 40A(3) of the Act 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that in terms of Rule 6DD of the income Tax Rules, 1962 no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee

3 ITA No. 158/PAT/2025 A2Dya Milk and Organic Products Private Limited 8. Without prejudice to the above, the assessee had made payments of Rs. 12.54,509 from the bank account out of the total payments of Rs. 1,08,47,839, accordingly, the provisions of section 40A(3) of the Act are not applicable at the threshold on such payments. Re: Addition under section 43B of the Act of Rs. 10,88,850 9. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the amount of Goods & Service Tax payable, are shown on the liability side and was not routed through the profit and loss account 10. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that non-payment of Goods & Service Tax did not impact the computation of business income for the assessment year consideration and accordingly, the provisions of section 43B were not applicable to the facts of the case. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or vary, any of the aforesaid grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” 2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 12.02.2021 which was processed on 31.12.2021. During the course of processing of return, the CPC disallowed a sum of Rs. 1,08,47,839/- u/s 40A(3) of the Act and sum of Rs. 1,87,394/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on the basis of audit report. Further disallowance was made u/s 43B of the Act was Rs. 10,88,850/-

3.

Aggrieved from the processing of return, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The assessee filed detail written submission. The Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

4.

Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the ITAT.

5.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the Ld. CIT(A) and further submitted that while processing return

4 ITA No. 158/PAT/2025 A2Dya Milk and Organic Products Private Limited u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act had debatable issue cannot be disallowed by CPC and the assessee submitted that the assessee has filed paper book.

6.

The Ld. DR relied on the order of lower authorities and submitted that as per section 143(1)(a)(ii) of the Act any incorrect claim if such incorrect claim is apparent from any information in the return. The CPC can make adjustment the information was available with the department by way of reporting in Form 3CD by the tax auditor. Accordingly, CPC correctly disallowed the claim of the assessee as per information and regarding delay deposit of PF & ESI. He submitted that this issue has been put to rest by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). For other addition he completely relied on the order of Ld. CIT(A).

7.

Considering the rival submission and perusing the entire material available on record and the orders of authorities below. Before us, the assessee has raised legal ground No. 1 & 2 which was not adjudicated before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Counsel had submitted paper books but at the time of hearing, paper book was not available before the Bench and it was reached letter. Therefore, considering the facts of the case and in the interests of justice, we are remitting this issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for deciding a fresh as per law and further directed to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the legal ground raised by the assessee in Ground Nos. 1 and 2 and other issues on merits of the case and the assessee is

5 ITA No. 158/PAT/2025 A2Dya Milk and Organic Products Private Limited directed to substantiate its case with cogent documents in support of its claim and not seek unnecessary adjournments for early disposal of the case.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 20.05.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (Sonjoy Sarma) (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 20.05.2026 AK, Sr. P.S. Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. CIT(DR)

//True copy// By order

Assistant Registrar, Kolkata Benches

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →