Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against the final assessment order for AY 2021-22. The primary issues were disallowance of Rs. 5,40,607/- under section 36(1)(va) due to a typographical error and an addition of Rs. 60,09,912/- as deferred tax under MAT provisions.
Held
The Tribunal restored both issues to the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO was directed to examine the assessee's contentions regarding the typographical error in employee's contribution to PF/ESI, the timely payment of such contribution, and the addition of deferred tax under MAT provisions.
Key Issues
Whether the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) was a result of a typographical error and if the employee's contribution was paid within the due date. Whether deferred tax was correctly added back while computing MAT provisions.
Sections Cited
143(3), 144C(13), 144B, 144C(5), 36(1)(va), 143(1)(a), 115JB
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH, ‘I’: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCONTANT MEMBER
ORDER PER C.N. PRASAD, JM,
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the final assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s.144B dated 23.09.2024 pursuant to the directions of the DRP dated 30.08.2024 passed u/s.144C(5) of the Act for the A.Y.2021-22.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that there are only two issues in this appeal, one relating to disallowance/ addition made u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act to the extent of Rs.5,40,607/- and addition of deferred tax of Rs.60,09,912/-.
The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to page 109 and 110 of the paper book which is the response from Assessee for the proposed adjustment u/s.143(1)(a) of the Act, submitted that there is typographical error with respect to entry at Sr. No.16 in the computation of income due to which disallowance of Rs.5,40,607/- came to be made. The Ld. Counsel submits that the correct amount of employee’s contribution to PF/ESI is Rs.9,48,732/-, however, this was inadvertently mentioned as Rs.14,89,339/-. Hence, there was a difference of Rs.5,40,607/- which came to be disallowed. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the tax audit report employee’s contribution to PF and ESI was wrongly mentioned due to which the disallowance occurred and requested for direction to look into by the AO. It was also further stated that the correct amount of employee’s contribution of Rs.9,48,732/- was in fact was paid on 14.08.2020 as the due date was 15.08.2020 and hence there is no delay in the remittance.
Coming to deferred tax adjustment of Rs.60,09,912/- which was made while computing the income under MAT provisions, referring to page 111 which is the reply/ response submitted by the assessee for the proposed adjustment, stated that the assessee has already disallowed Rs.60,09,912/- under item 5m of MAT schedule. The assessee also clarified that the total amount to be disallowed is Rs.2,24,85,681/- and this was shown as current tax of Rs.1,64,75,769/- at item 5a and deferred tax of Rs.60,09,912/- has been shown item at 5m. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel submitted a direction may be given to the AO to examine the same as the assessee has already added back the deferred tax.
The Ld. DR has no serious objection.
Heard rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. In view of the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee we restore the issues in appeal to the file of the AO to examine the contentions of the assessee that the disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act was only resulted due to typographical error in the audit report and even otherwise the same was paid within the due date.
The contention of the assessee that deferred tax of Rs.60,09,912/- was added back while computing the MAT provisions u/s.115JB of the Act is also to be examined by the AO. Thus, the issues in appeal are restored to the file of the AO to examine in the light of our observations and to pass Page | 3 appropriate order in accordance with law after providing opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10.04.2026.