MBS JEWELLER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CIRCLE-3(1), HYDERABAD

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these involve two issues i.e. (a) addition of Rs.2,50,875/- on account of delayed payment of PF & ESI and (b) addition of Rs.33,79,972/- being the difference in one time settlement which was treated as income from other sources.

So far as the first issue is concerned, the learned Counsel for the assessee did not press the same for which the learned DR has no objection. Accordingly, the first issue raised by the assessee in the ground of appeal i.e. challenging the addition of Rs.2,50,875/- on account of delayed payment of PF & ESI etc., is dismissed as not pressed.

Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The learned Counsel for the assessee at the outset referring to page 13 of the order of the CIT (A) wherein the reply received from SBI in response to notice u/s 133(6) has been reproduced submitted that due to some clerical error, the waiver amount has been mentioned at Rs.5,13,77,582/-. He submitted that if the onetime settlement amount of Rs.12,32,60,999/- is reduced from the opening balance of Rs.17,12,58,608/- as on 01.04.2017, then the difference comes to Rs.4,79,97,610/-. Therefore, due to the inadvertent error committed by SBI, no addition should have been made in the hands of the assessee.

The learned DR, on the other hand, while supporting the order of the learned CIT (A) fairly conceded that there is an arithmetical error on the part of the Bank while deducting the amount of Rs.12,32,60,999/- from Rs.17,12,58,608/-.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the record. A perusal of the letter received from SBI in response to notice u/s 133(6) reads as under:

If we deduct the onetime settlement amount of Rs.12,32,60,999/- from the opening balance as on 1/4/2017 of Rs.17,12,58,608/-, the difference comes to Rs.4,79,97,610/-. We find the lower authorities became very hyper technical and without considering the factual aspect or without asking the Bank as how such figure was arrived at went by the erroneous figure of SBI reproduced as above. We, therefore, accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee that the actual one-time settlement amount is Rs.4,79,97,610/- as claimed in the return of income and computation statement. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order of the CIT (A) and the ground raised by the assessee on this issue is allowed.