RAKESH PHOOLCHAND TIWARI,MUMBAI vs. ADIT,CPC, WARD 24(3)(1), MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without considering the assessee's adjournment request and the additional evidence submitted. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee claimed a deduction for unpaid bonus expenditure. The CPC disallowed this claim during processing, and the CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance, stating the assessee did not provide supporting details. The assessee argued they were not given an opportunity to substantiate their claim.
What were the issues?
Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of bonus expenditure without considering the additional evidence and adjournment request filed by the assessee.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, A.M. : This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi Dt.19.12.2021 for the Assessment Year 2019-20 passed u/s.250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).
The solitary ground of appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) in disallowance of bonus expenditure amounting to Rs.9,67,944 claimed as deduction u/s.43B of the Act.
3. The brief facts of the case are that the CPC, Bangalore while processing of Return of Income u/s.143(1) of the Act disallowed a sum of Rs.9,78,098 claimed by the assessee u/s.43B of the Act on account of liability for unpaid bonus. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore while processing the Return of Income of the assessee, disallowed an amount of Rs.9,67,944 on unpaid bonus. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the impugned disallowance stating that the assessee had not submitted any further details in support of his contention of payment of such bonus amount as per the provisions of law. During the course of appellate proceedings, before us, the assessee had filed application vide letter dt.9.10.2011 requested for admitting additional evidences stating that at the time of assessment u/s.143(1) of the Act, the assessee was not granted opportunity to substantiate his claim. Even before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee requested for adjournment but the same was not granted. The assessee claimed in his submission that bonus amount was paid before the due date of filing of Return of Income. The assessee furnished copies of computation of income tax returns for A.Y. 2019-20, copy of adjournment application, copy of bank statement showing payment made, copy of register showing acknowledgement of receipt of bonus by the employees, etc. On perusal of the aforesaid material placed on record, it is noticed that the assessee had made adjournment request on 22.11.2021 on the Eportal of Income Tax Department and sought adjournment upto 3.12.2021, however, the ld. CIT(A) had decided the appeal of te assessee on 23.11.2021 without considering the above referred adjustment application of the assessee holding that the assessee had not submitted any details. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, we consider that the decision of ld. CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal of the assessee is not justified, therefore we restore the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating de novo after taking to consideration the additional evidences filed b the assessee. Accordingly, both the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 7th July, 2022.
More judgments on Section 43B
- Vco Consulatatns and Sevices Private… vs ITO, Corporate Ward 3(3), ChennaiITA 2145/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Siemens Gamesa Renewable Power Private… vs The Dy CIT Circle 8(2)(1), MumbaiITA 8020/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed9 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Amritvarsha Industries Limited, Ambedkar… vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 6481/DEL/2026[2010-2011]Status: Disposed7 Oct 2026AY 2010-2011
- Karaj Singh, Haryana vs PCIT (Central) Gurgaon, GurgaonITA 642/CHANDI/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed1 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
- ACIT, Mumbai vs Imp Powers Limited, MumbaiITA 4982/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: Disposed30 Sept 2026AY 2012-13
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Utkal Suppliers,Ganjam vs. Assistant Commissioner Of CT And GST, Ganjam-I Circle,GanjamOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of Hte Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Kotdwar Steel Limited vs. Office Of The Deputy CommissionerUttarakhand · 28 Oct 2026