DCIT, CIRCLE-3, THANE, THANE vs. PAN GULF TECHNOLOGIES PRIVATE LIMITED, THANE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1747/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 May 2025AY 2023-24Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the matter needed to be remanded to the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) for verification of whether the expenditure claimed was paid within the due date. The additions are to be deleted if the expenditure was paid within the due date.

What were the facts?

The Revenue's appeal concerns the deletion of an addition by the CIT(A) concerning payments made under section 43B of the IT Act. The appellant submitted evidence for these payments to the CIT(A) for the first time, which the AO did not verify. The appellant also contended that Rule 46A of the IT Rules was violated as they were not given an opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition without remanding the matter to the AO for verification of evidence submitted for the first time, and whether Rule 46A was violated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43B,Section 143(1),Section 46A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, AM

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Bhrke
For Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha
Hearing: 24.04.2025Pronounced: 05.05.2025
1.

The only ground of appeal raised by the Revenue in this case is that the appellant filed certain evidences relating to payments made under section 43B of the I.T. Act before the Ld. CIT(A) for the first time and the Ld. CIT(A) has not remanded the matter back to the Ld. AO for verification. Without calling for the remand of Ld. AO, the Ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by CPC under section 143(1), is the grievance of Revenue in this appeal.

2.

During the appeal proceedings before the ITAT, the Ld. AR has contended that Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules was violated and the Ld. AO (in this case CPC) was not given opportunity before allowing the deduction under section 43B of the I.T. Act.

3.

The Ld. AR opposed the plea and submitted a paper book during the hearing before the ITAT (which contains the details of payments made relating to bonus/incentive to employees and gratuity, before filing the revised return of income and hence disallowance under section 43B cannot be made and Ld. CIT(A) has correctly deleted the addition made by CPC.

4.

Heard both sides. The contention of Ld. CPC, AO in this case, is that the appellant company did not pay the bonus, incentives and gratuity before filing original return of income as mentioned in the Tax Audit based on which CPC disallowed the expenditure under section 43B. But the contention of appellant company is that this expenditure claimed was paid before filing return of income which was not verified by Ld. AO. Prima facie, it appears that the appellant company has paid the amounts before the due date as mentioned by Ld. CIT(A), but the same was not verified by CPC. The matter is remanded to the Ld. AO, as contended by Revenue and the same is remanded only to this limited extent. The issue is remitted for examination by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and he is directed to delete the additions, if the expenditure claimed was paid within the due date.

5.

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 05-05-2025.

More judgments on Section 43B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →