Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed their appeal against the CPC's intimation. The CPC had made adjustments for disallowance of provident fund contribution and late payment of GST. The appeal was filed after a significant delay, which was condoned.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Observing that necessary verification was not done at the lower levels, the Tribunal restored the matter to the jurisdictional AO for verification, with a direction to decide the issues after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the matter should be restored to the AO for verification when necessary verification was not conducted by the lower authorities and whether the assessee was denied an opportunity of being heard.
Sections Cited
143(1)(a), 28, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Before: MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL & SMT. RENU JAUHRI
सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date of Hearing 22.04.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date of Pronouncement 23.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 28.02.2023 passed P a g e | 2 A.Y. 2019-20 Alumilite Architecturals Ltd. u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2019-20.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
Ground No. 1: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the first appellate authority ought to have been considered that the learned Assessing Officer has erred in adding a sum of Rs.32,842/- pertaining to provident fund contribution. being, disallowance of the expenditure indicated in the Audit Report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return on account of 'any sum received from the employees as contribution to any provident fund, to the extent not credited to the employees account on or before the due date' without considering the fact that payment is made before the due date of filing the return. The Assessee relies upon the Honourable Supreme Court decision of CIT Vs Vinay Cements Ltd (313 ITR (st) 1) reported in 213CTR 268. Ground No. 2: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the first appellate authority ought to have been considered that the learned Assessing Officer has erred in adding a sum of Rs.70,98,283/ pertaining to GST payable being, disallowance of the amount indicated in Audit Report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return on account of 'any sum payable by the Assessee by way of tax, duty, cess or fee, by whatever name called, under any law for the time being in force' shall be allowed only in computing the income referred to in section 28 of that previous year in which such sum is actually paid by him without considering the fact that the Assessee did not debit the amount to the profit and loss account as an expenditure nor did the Assessee claim any deduction in respect of the amount since the Assessee was following mercantile system of accounting, the question of disallowing the deduction not claimed does not arise. The Assessee relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in case of the Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Noble and Hewitt (1) P. Ltd., Bombay High Court in case of the commissioner of Income Tax-8 V/S Ovira Logistics Pvt. Ltd.