Loading judgment…
Facts
The Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) made an addition of Rs. 7,13,187/- under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act to the assessee's total income. The assessee appealed this, contending that the amount was never claimed as a deduction. The CIT(A) upheld the CPC's order despite not disputing the non-claiming of the payment by the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the assessee had not claimed any deduction for the disputed amount of Rs. 7,13,187/-. Since no deduction was claimed by the assessee, the CPC lacked the authority to disallow the said amount. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal.
Key Issues
Whether the addition made under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act is valid when the assessee had not claimed any deduction for the said amount.
Sections Cited
43B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
(Assessment Year: 2018-19) Prashant Ghanshyam Patel(Prop. Income Tax Officer, Vs. Delta Paper), Ward-3(1)(2), 9/A Dipika Society No.1, Vadodara. Water Tank Road, Karelibaug, Vadodara-390002. [PAN :AHNPP5286 H] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : Adjournment Application filed Respondent by: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT. DR Date of Hearing 26.06.2025 Date of Pronouncement 03.07.2025 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-
Delay Condoned This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the appellate order dated 08.10.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, relating to the Assessment Year 2018-19.
The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeals:
The learned National Faceless Appeals Unit (“ the NFAC”) and the learned Centralise Processing Centre, Bangalore (“the CPC”) erred in fact and in law in making an addition of Rs.7,13,187/- u/s. 43B of the Act to the total income of the Appellant.
Prashant Ghanshyam Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 2– 2. The learned NFAC and the CPC erred in fact and in law in making addition of Rs.7,13,187/- without considering the fact that no deduction was claimed by the Appellant. 3. The learned NFAC and the CPC erred in fact and in law in making addition without considering the facts of the case in proper perspective.
At the time of the hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, however, an adjournment application dated 25.06.2025 was filed. We have decided to proceed with the matter on its merits after hearing the Ld. DR for the revenue.
The pertinent facts required for adjudication of this case are that the CPC has made addition of Rs.7,13,187/- u/s. 43B of the Act. The record reveals that assessee has not claimed any deduction on this account. On going through records, we find that the Ld.CIT (A) has not disputed the non-claiming of payment of GST, but confirmed the order of the CPC. The undisputed fact of the case is that the amount in question was not at all claimed by the assessee, the CPC cannot disallow the amount. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open Court on 03.07.2025
Sd/- Sd/- (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT (True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 03.07.2025 MV Prashant Ghanshyam Patel Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2018-19 - 3– आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��थ� / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु� / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, True Copy