AQUARELLE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), BANGALORE

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:

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 Page 3 of 4 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.

Respondent 3. CIT

DR, ITAT, Bangalore

Guard file

CIT(A)