Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)] for assessment year 2020-21, arising from the order u/s 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’)
Equinox Labs Pvt. Ltd. 2 ITA No. 2340/M/2022
passed by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore. The passed by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore. The passed by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under:
The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in disallowing PF contribution of disallowing PF contribution of Rs. 4,06,432/ Rs. 4,06,432/- although the same was deposited before due date u/s 139. the same was deposited before due date u/s 139. the same was deposited before due date u/s 139. 2. 2. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has failed to 2. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has failed to 2. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has failed to appreciate the provisions of section 43 B(b). appreciate the provisions of section 43 B(b). appreciate the provisions of section 43 B(b). 3. 3. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in 3. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in 3. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in ignoring the Supreme Court decision. ignoring the Supreme Court decision. 4. 4. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in 4. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in 4. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in not giving TDS credit of Rs. 47,011/ not giving TDS credit of Rs. 47,011/-. 5. 5. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has failed to 5. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has failed to 5. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has failed to appreciate the appreciate the provisions of Rule 37BA(3A). provisions of Rule 37BA(3A). 6. 6. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in 6. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in 6. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in passing an order without giving an opportunity of being passing an order without giving an opportunity of being passing an order without giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. heard to the assessee. 7. 7. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in 7. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in 7. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in ignoring the case law on both the issu ignoring the case law on both the issues involved. es involved. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the order u/s 154 Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the order u/s 154 Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the order u/s 154 passed by the CPC on 17.03.2022 disallowance u/s 30(1)(va) of passed by the CPC on 17.03.2022 disallowance u/s 30(1)(va) of passed by the CPC on 17.03.2022 disallowance u/s 30(1)(va) of ₹4,06,432/- and disallowance of TDS credit of and disallowance of TDS credit of ₹47,011/ 47,011/- was made.
Equinox Labs Pvt. Ltd. 3 ITA No. 2340/M/2022
On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of disallowance of ESI / PF contribution paid beyond the stipulated date of ₹ ESI / PF contribution paid beyond the stipulated date of ESI / PF contribution paid beyond the stipulated date of 4,06,432/-. However, the issue of TDS credit was not decided. . However, the issue of TDS credit was not decided. . However, the issue of TDS credit was not decided.
We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue-in- dispute and perused the relevant material on record. dispute and perused the relevant material on record. dispute and perused the relevant material on record.
4.1 Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee did not press Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee did not press Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee did not press grounds related to delayed deposit of ESI/PF contribution of related to delayed deposit of ESI/PF contribution of related to delayed deposit of ESI/PF contribution of ₹4,06,432/-. Accordingly, the ground No. 2 and 3 appeal of the . Accordingly, the ground No. 2 and 3 appeal of the . Accordingly, the ground No. 2 and 3 appeal of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous. dismissed as infructuous.
Further, the ground Nos. 1, Further, the ground Nos. 1, 7 & 8 are general in nature and general in nature and therefore same were also dismissed as infructuous. therefore same were also dismissed as infructuous.
In remaining grounds 4 to 6, the assessee has raised issue of In remaining grounds 4 to 6, the assessee has raised issue of In remaining grounds 4 to 6, the assessee has raised issue of TDS credit of ₹28,810/ 28,810/- not granted by the CPC, not granted by the CPC, though it was reflected in Form No. 26AS. The relevant reflected in Form No. 26AS. The relevant submission submission of the assessee as reproduced in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as under: s reproduced in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as under: s reproduced in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as under:
The Ld. AO has disallowed TDS credit of The Ld. AO has disallowed TDS credit of ₹47,011/- on The Ld. AO has disallowed TDS credit of the ground that it is not reflecting in 26AS of F.Y. 2019- the ground that it is not reflecting in 26AS of F.Y. 2019 the ground that it is not reflecting in 26AS of F.Y. 2019 2020.
Equinox Labs Pvt. Ltd. 4 ITA No. 2340/M/2022
Out of the TDS of Out of the TDS of ₹47,011/-, ₹28,810/- is reflected in is reflected in Form 26AS correctly. The details are as followed: 26AS correctly. The details are as followed: 26AS correctly. The details are as followed:
Sr. Name of Deductor TAN TAN of of Total amount Total tax Total TDS TDS Difference No. Deductor Deductor paid/credited deducted deposited claimed (₹) (₹) (₹) as per order u/s 154 5. Ace Designers BLRA00221E BLRA00221E 17,500 350 350 700 (350) Ltd. 8. Anz Operations BLRA07007A BLRA07007A 34,200 3,430 3,420 5,450 (2,030) and Technology Pvt. Ltd. 9. Anz Support BLRA09899B BLRA09899B 34,200 3,430 3,420 5,450 (2,030) Services India Pvt. Ltd. 232. IDBI Bank Ltd. MUMI04922B MUMI04922B 3,36,319 33,632 36,632 36,607 (2,975) 250. J P Morgan MUMJ05980C MUMJ05980C 2,41,93,040 19,47,988 19,47,988 19,47,988 (800) Services India Pvt. Ltd. 381 Tata MUMV07840A MUMV07840A 6,83,669 68,368 68,368 88,993 (20625) Communications Ltd. 20,57,178 20,85,988 (28,810) A copy of Form 26AS highlighting the A copy of Form 26AS highlighting the said amounts is said amounts is attached herewith. attached herewith.
Regarding the difference of Regarding the difference of ₹18,200/-, the assessee has , the assessee has suffered TDS although the same is not appearing in Form suffered TDS although the same is not appearing in Form suffered TDS although the same is not appearing in Form 26AS.”
6.1 Heard rival submission and perused Heard rival submission and perused the relevant material on relevant material on
record. We find that this issue We find that this issue is of matter of verification verification at the level
of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we restore the matter back to of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we restore the matter back to of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we restore the matter back to
the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for allowing credit of the TDS the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for allowing credit of the TDS the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for allowing credit of the TDS
under the provisions of law and Rule No. 37 ovisions of law and Rule No. 37BA of the Income BA of the Income-tax
Rules, 1962. It is needless to mention that Rules, 1962. It is needless to mention that the assessee shall be the assessee shall be
afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. afforded adequate opportunity of being heard.
Equinox Labs Pvt. Ltd. 5 ITA No. 2340/M/2022
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes. for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, 1963 on 29/12/202 /2022. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/ (VIKAS AWASTHY VIKAS AWASTHY) (OM PRAKASH KANT OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated:29/12/2022 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. BY ORDER, BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Sr. Private Secretary) (Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai ITAT, Mumbai
Equinox Labs Pvt. Ltd. 6 ITA No. 2340/M/2022
Date Initials Original dictation pad is enclosed Original dictation pad is enclosed at the end of file at the end of file 1. Draft dictated on: Draft dictated on: 26.12.2022 Sr. PS/PS 2. Draft placed before author: before author: 26.12.2022 Sr. PS/PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before Draft proposed & placed before JM/AM the second member: the second member: 4. Draft discussed/approved by Draft discussed/approved by JM/AM Second Member: Second Member: 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr. Approved Draft comes to the Sr. Sr. PS/PS PS/PS: 6. Order pronounced on: Order pronounced on: Sr. PS/PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk: sent to the Bench Clerk: 8. Date on which file goes to the Date on which file goes to the Sr. PS/PS Head Clerk: 9. Date on which file goes to AR Date on which file goes to AR