Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed its return of income, and the CPC Central intimation raised a demand. The assessee sought rectification, claiming an amount received as a refund from the goods and service tax department was not revenue but a current asset. This claim was rejected by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal noted that the evidence for the refund claim was not fully verified by the lower authorities. Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer (AO) for thorough verification of all furnished evidence, with a direction to analyze the claim in accordance with the law and grant the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the refund of goods and service tax is to be treated as revenue or a current asset, and whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the claim without proper verification of evidence.
Sections Cited
143(1), 154
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SMT. BEENA PILLAI & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA
Per: Smt. Beena Pillai, J.M.: Present appeal rise filed by the assessee arises out of order dated 15/10/2024 passed by an SACD for assessment year 2021-22 on following grounds of appeal:
S.A. No. 4/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2021-22 2 “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals) NFAC, New Delhi has erred in conceding the additions made by the Assessing Officer of an amount of Rs.2,25,29,714 on account of IGST refund receivable as an income though the same is not revenue in nature but a CURRENT ASSET. The assessee company accounts the input credit of GST on the purchases - including IGST, SCGST etc in CURRENT ASSET and not in revenue accounts. The same way output GST- on sale side is also accounted in this CURRENT ASSET. Net of this current asset is received back. If the input credit of GST and output credit of GST both are treated as REVENUE account, the effect will be the same. There will not be any change in the income. It was simply a disclosure requirement as per the items indicated in the relevant clause of the tax audit report filed for the above assessment year.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT - Appeals has erred in completely brushed aside all the details furnished by way of grounds of appeal
, statement of facts followed by detailed submission made in the course of appellate proceedings. He has not even called for the details, which requires him to properly adjudicate the issues narrated in the relevant documents as stated earlier.
3. The appellant craves to leave add or delete any of the above grounds which are independent of each other.” Brief facts of the case are as under:
Assessee is of limited company and filed its return of income for year under consideration on 10/01/2022. The CPC Central intimation under section 143(1) of the act was issued it raising demand of Rs. 60,44,06,810/-. Against the said intimation, assessee filed rectification under section 154 of the act, as the adjustment made by the CPC was towards the refund of duty of customs and excise service tax refund which was admitted as due by the respective authorities concerned as per the audit report.
S.A. No. 4/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2021-22 3 2.1 It was submitted that, the amount of ₹22,52,90,714/- was received as refund from the goods and service tax department. However while filing original ITR, there was inadvertent omission which was duly rectified by filing a revised return of income.
The 1st appellate authority did not consider the claim of the assessee as the evidences to show that the refund pertains the payment made by itself and not charge to the purchaser, were not furnished. It was also noted that the same was not debited to the profit and loss account as expenses. The Ld. CIT(A) thus rejected the claim of assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the tribunal.
It is submitted that the bank statements, all the invoices are available in order to establish the claim as refund from GST as per the provisions of the act and has been paid from the assessee’s account.
4.1 The Ld.DR submitted that all these evidences has not been duly verified by the authorities below and in the interest of justice the same may be remanded to the Ld. AO for necessary verification.
We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us.
It is submitted that the evidence in the form of invoices and bank statements and various documents furnished before this Tribunal has not been filed before the authorities below and S.A. No. 4/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2021-22 4 deserves to be verified thoroughly in order to appreciate the claim of assessee. In the interest of justice we remedy this issue back to the Ld.AO with a direction to consider all evidences furnished by the assessee, based on which, claim of assessee will be analysed in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee.
Accordingly the grounds raised by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.
As we have remitted the issue back to the Ld.AO, the stay application filed by the assessee becomes infructuous and is dismissed.
In the result appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes and stay application filed by the assessee becomes infructuous.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31/01/2025