SARIKA ZENDE,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-14(5), PUNE, PUNE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1775/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune21 January 2025AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)6 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the quantum appeal had been restored to the CIT(A) for adjudication. Consequently, the issue of penalty confirmed by the CIT(A) was also restored to the CIT(A)'s file for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in business, filed a revised return and claimed a deduction for statutory dues paid in F.Y. 2019-2020, which was disallowed by the Assessing Officer under Section 43B. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A for under-reporting and mis-reporting of income, confirming a penalty of Rs. 15,48,108/-.

What were the issues?

Whether the penalty levied under Section 270A is sustainable when the quantum issue is being restored for fresh adjudication to the CIT(A).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43B,Section 270A,Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Hearing: 15.01.2025Pronounced: 21.01.2025

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order dated 26.06.2024 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi, for assessment year 2020-2021.

2.

There is a delay of 05 days in filing the appeal, for which, the assessee has filed a condonation application explaining the reasons for such delay. After considering the contents of the condonation application and after hearing the Learned DR, the delay in filing of the appeal of 05 days is condoned and appeal is admitted for adjudication.

2 ITA.No.1775/PUN./2024

3.

Although, a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the penalty of Rs.15,48,108/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/sec.270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short "the Act").

4.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and engaged in the business of sale and purchase of housekeeping materials and provision of manpower services to private and non-government entities.

She filed her return of income on 11.11.2020 admitting total income of Rs.30,06,080/- and claiming refund of Rs.3,29,430/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return on 29.03.2021 admitting income of Rs.15,70,920/- and claiming refund of Rs.10,86,080/-. In the revised return, the assessee claimed deduction of statutory dues paid in F.Y.

2019-2020 amounting to Rs.24,25,158/- on payment basis which were disallowed in the earlier years on account of delay in payment as per the provisions of sec.43B of the Act, the details of which are as under :

Amount of Amount Expenditure Claimed on Nature of Date of F.Y. Disallowed Payment Expenditure Payment Under Section Basis in F.Y. 43B (Rs.) 19-20(Rs.) 2015-16 18,71,199 Seervice Tax 18,71,199 22-Jan-2020 dues 2015-16 3,21,180 Contribution 3,21,180 22-Jan-2020 towards employee PF 2016-17 2,41,779 Service Tax 2,41,779 22-Jan-2020 dues TOTAL 24,25,158 24,25,158

3 ITA.No.1775/PUN./2024

5.

In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer found that such claim of assessee is incorrect and, therefore, he disallowed the deduction of Rs.24,25,158/- u/sec.43B of the Act.

6.

The assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A).

In the meantime, the Assessing Officer initiated penalty proceedings u/sec.270A of the Act for under-reporting of income in consequence of mis-reporting thereof and issued show cause notice u/sec.274 r.w.s.270A of the Act. Rejecting the various explanations given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.15,15,794/-. The Assessing Officer, similarly noted that interest payment of Rs.2,07,144/- has been debited to P & L A/c and such interest was on account of late payment of service tax liability of earlier years.

Rejecting the various explanation given by the assessee, the Assessing Officer disallowed the amount of Rs.2,07,144/- to the total income of the assessee and initiated penalty proceedings u/sec.270A of the Act and levied penalty of Rs.32,314/-. The penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/sec.270A of the Act totaling to Rs.15,48,108/- was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A).

7.

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

4 ITA.No.1775/PUN./2024

8.

Learned Counsel for the Assessee, at the outset, submitted that the quantum appeal has been restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with certain directions. Therefore, he has no objection if the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the issue.

9.

The Learned DR has no objection to the above proposition.

10.

After hearing both the sides, we find the quantum proceedings have been restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for adjudication of the issue afresh. We, therefore, restore the issue of penalty confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) to his file for fresh adjudication. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

11.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 21.01.2025.

More judgments on Section 43B

All 7,161 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →