AQUARELLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal observed that both authorities below failed to consider the revised Forms 3CA-3CD. The Tribunal directed the JAO to redecide the issue pertaining to Section 40(a)(ia) considering the revised forms.
What were the facts?
The assessee filed original and revised return of income. The CPC processed the return based on the original filing and made additions/disallowances. The CIT partly allowed the appeal, deleting one addition but upholding others.
What were the issues?
Whether the authorities below erred in not considering the revised return forms filed by the assessee before the due date.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
PER NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 21/03/2025 impugned herein passed by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A), Faridabad [in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2020-21.
2. In the instant case, the assessee had initially filed form no. 3CA on dated 30/11/2020 i.e. prior to the last date i.e. 31/12/2020 as prescribed for filing of original return of income.
Subsequently, the Assessee by realizing its mistake in filing of Forms 3CA & 3CD revised the same on dated 01/12/2020, which was also prior to the last date i.e. 31/12/2020, as prescribed for filing of return of income.
The CPC processed the return filed by the Assessee on the basis of Form 3CA/3CD filed originally on dated 30/11/2020 but not on the basis of revised Forms 3CA-3CD filed on dated 01/12/2020 and therefore vide intimation dated 18/12/2021 made the following additions/disallowances:
(i) Rs. 33,74,484/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act; (ii) Rs. 131244/- in respect of delay in payment of employees contribution to provident fund u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act; (iii) Rs. 6762762/- on account of delay in payment of gratuity u/s. 43B of the Act.
The assessee being aggrieved challenged the said additions/ disallowances by filing first appeal before the Ld. Commissioner, who vide impugned order though deleted the addition made by the AO on account not allowing the deduction claimed u/s. 43B of the Act to the tune of Rs. 7267265/- qua gratuity by directing the assessing officer to allow such claim after verification of requisite documentary evidence, however he affirmed the addition of Rs. 3374484/- u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act and addition of Rs. 1,31,244/- to the extent of Rs. 31,244/- on account of disallowance made qua delay in making the payment with regard to the employee’s contribution to PF/ESI by considering the claim of the assessee that balance of Rs. 1,00,000/- was mistakenly shown as pay bill in the audit report but no documentary evidence was furnished by the assessee to substantiate its claim. The Ld. Commissioner consequently directed the JAO to verify such claim of the assessee vis-à-vis the requisite documentary evidence and accordingly recompute the total income of the assessee as per law.
The Assessee being aggrieved challenged the decision of the Ld. Commissioner to the extent of affirming the addition of Rs. 3374484/- being disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act mainly on the reason as emphasized before us that the Ld. Commissioner also without considering the revised form 3CA-3CD, partly affirmed the additions including the amount of Rs. 33,74,484/- which is under consideration as emphasised by the Assessee.
The Ld. DR though supported the order passed by the Authorities below but did not refute the aforesaid claim of the assessee.
Having heard the parties and perusing the materials available on record, we observe that the contention raised by the assessee to the effect that despite of filing revised Forms 3CA-3CD, both the authorities below failed to take cognizance of the same and determined the tax liability on the basis of original Forms 3CA-3CD which were subsequently revised. Admittedly, both the Forms 3CA & 3CD original and revised, were filed before the due date for filing of return of income and were available before the CPC while processing the return of income and before the Ld. Commissioner at the time of adjudication of the intimation/order passed by the CPC.
Thus, considering the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case in totality, we direct the JAO to decide afresh the issue qua section 40(a)(ia) of the Act only, while considering the revised Forms 3CA & 3CD but not the originally filed.
Resultantly, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands partly allowed to the extent, as directed above for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 07th August, 2025.
More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)
- Rekha Agarwal, Jaipur vs ITO WD 4(1), JaipurITA 844/JPR/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Cdg Petchem Limited, Hyderabad vs ITO, Ward - 1(1), HyderabadITA 1900/HYD/2025[2018-2019]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-2019
- M/S. Shree Laminators Ltd., Kolkata vs DCIT, Circle 4(4), KolkataITA 1534/KOL/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2011-2012
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Shivam Kumar vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S Rajkalpana Travels PVT. LTD. vs. Commissioner CGST, Delhi North CommissionerateDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Mahaveer Ispat Traders vs. Principal Commissioner Dgst Delhi Department Of Trade And Taxes Gnctd & Anr.Delhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Modern Engineers And Contractors vs. The Deputy Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- K Madhusudan Reddy vs. The State Of Andhra PradeshAndhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026