RINGFEDER POWER TRANSMISSION INDIA PVT. LTD.,KANCHIPURAM vs. ACIT, LTU CIRCLE-1,, CHENNAI

Years: 2023-24 Ringfeder Power Transmission India Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Private Limited. LTU, Circle-1, Plot No.4, Door No.220, Mount Chennai. Poonamallee High Road, Kattupakkam, Chennai-600 056. [PAN: AADC R8118C] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee by : Shri R.M.Narayanan, CA & Mr.Vijay Narayanan, CA प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue by : R.Raghupathy, Addl.CIT सुिवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 17.02.2025 घोर्णा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 26.03.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER AMITABH SHUKLA, A.M :

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order bearing DIN & N ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1066843525(1) dated 19.07.2024 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [herein after “CIT(A), for the assessment years 2023-24. Through the aforesaid appeal the assessee has challenged order u/s 250 dated 19.07.2024 passed by Addl/JCIT(A)- 4, Bengaluru.

Page - 1 - of 5 2.0 It has been noted that there is a delay of 53 days in the case, in filing of this appeal before the tribunal. In its affidavit the assesse has pleaded that the assesse had inadvertently taken a deficient understanding of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and that took “allowed” as full relief whereas the same was not the case. It was submitted that the direction of the Ld.CIT(A) of adding the amount of Rs.7,79,000/- went initially unnoticed and once it was fully comprehended the delay had occurred. All these activities contributed to the delay which was neither willful nor wanton. The assesse submitted that there will not be case of any non-compliance now. We have considered the justification put forth by the assesse and we are satisfied with their adequacy. We are also conscious of the fact that no litigant gains by intentionally delaying its own matters. The Ld. DR did not pose any serious objections to the delay. Accordingly, we hereby condone the delay and proceed to adjudicate this appeal.

3.0 The only issue raised by the assessee, through its grounds of appeal, in this case is regarding an addition of Rs.7,79,000/- u/s 40(a)(ia) ordered by Ld.CIT(A).

Page - 2 - of 5 4.0 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the professional fees was paid to one M/s.Velumuthu Associates of Rs. 11,12,500/- and by mistake the same was shown as claimed u/s 40(a)(ib). However, Ld.AO of CPC in his order u/s 143(1) had disallowed the amount of Rs. 11,12,500/- both u/s 40(a)(ia) and u/s 40(a)(ib) thus reducing refund payable to the assessee. The assessee subsequently revised its audit report under Form 3CD on 09.04.2024 showing the correct position of disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia). The Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld.First Appellate Authority in para 4.5 of his order directed the Ld.AO to delete the addition but make another addition of Rs.7,79,000/-. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of lower authorities.