RAISEN MARKETING P LTD,BHOPAL vs. THE ADIT CPC , BGHOPAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 157/IND/2023Status: DisposedITAT Indore24 July 2025AY 2020-217 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal agreed with the assessee's submission that the addition of Rs. 17,81,417/- made by the AO in the intimation under Section 143(1) was a double addition. The assessee had already incorporated adjustments in its computation of total income, resulting in a net addition of Rs. 17,81,417/- before filing the return. The AO's action of making the same addition again in the intimation was therefore erroneous. The Tribunal directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 17,81,417/-. Consequently, Grounds No. 5 and 6 of the assessee's appeal were allowed. The ratio decidendi is that adjustments made by the assessee in its return of income should not be re-added by the AO in a Section 143(1) intimation, as this leads to double taxation.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Raisen Marketing Private Ltd., filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Indore Bench, against an order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. This order arose from an intimation dated 24.12.2021 passed by the CPC, Bengaluru, under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2020-21. The appeal was originally decided on 19.01.2024, but a Misc. Application filed by the assessee led to the re-adjudication of grounds 5 and 6, which were previously unadjudicated. The dispute pertains to an addition of Rs. 17,81,417/- made by the Assessing Officer (AO) in the intimation.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 17,81,417/- made by the AO in the intimation under Section 143(1) is lawful and justified, considering the assessee's own adjustments in the return of income for Assessment Year 2020-21. Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that it had voluntarily made an addition of Rs. 45,63,142/- under the head 'Depreciation disallowed' and a deduction of Rs. 27,81,725/- under the head 'Allowed Depreciation' in its computation of total income before filing the return. The net effect of these adjustments was an addition of Rs. 17,81,417/-. Therefore, the AO's subsequent addition of the same amount in the intimation constituted a double addition, making it unlawful and unjustified. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue, through its learned Senior Departmental Representative, understood the assessee's submission and left the issue to the wisdom of the bench without raising any dispute.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 32

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Tiwari, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 22.07.2025Pronounced: 24.07.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

1.

Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 29.03.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of intimation of assessment dated 24.12.2021 passed by learned CPC, Bengaluru [“AO”] u/s 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2020-21, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds:

“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the denial of credit of TCS of Rs. 1168011/- and TDS of Rs. 9469/- in Page 1 of 7 AY 2020-21 intimation u/s 143(1) is unjustified and unlawful and therefore the credit of TCS of Rs. 1168011/- and TDS of Rs. 9469 be kindly allowed.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred and not justified in his findings that the denial of credit of TCS of Rs. 1168011 and TDS of Rs. 9469 is lawful, such findings be held as unlawful and injudicious and therefore be quashed and the credit of TCS of Rs. 1168011 and TDS of Rs. 9469 be kindly allowed. 3.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the assessee submits that having regard to the nature of business and the explanation furnished before the lower authorities it be held that the assessee is lawfully eligible and entitled to claim the credit of TCS of Rs. 1168011 and TDS of Rs. 9469 and the denial of such credit is injudicious and unlawful and hence the credit of TCS of Rs. 1168011 and TDS of Rs. 9469 be kindly allowed. 4.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the levy of interest under section 234B and 234C is unlawful and without jurisdiction, therefore, the same be kindly deleted. 5.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the adjustment, addition of Rs. 1781420 to the disclosed income is unlawful and unjustified and hence be deleted. 6.That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, while making statutory computation of total income shown in return at Rs. 53619320/- the difference of depreciation of Rs. 1781420/- has already been added in the disclosed returned income and therefore the further adjustment of Rs. 1781420/- u/s 143(1) is a double addition of the same amount, hence be deleted.”

2.

This is a re-called matter. Originally, this appeal was decided by Co- ordinate Bench of ITAT, Indore vide order dated 19.01.2024. Thereafter, the assessee filed Misc. Application No. 51/Ind/2024 informing that the Ground No. 5 & 6 remained unadjudicated. The assessee’s Misc. Application was allowed vide order dated 23.08.2024 for limited purpose of adjudication of Page 2 of 7 adjudication of Ground No. 5 & 6.

3.

We have heard learned Representatives of both sides and case records perused.

4.

Ld. AR carried us to impugned Ground No. 5 & 6 to show that the assessee has challenged the addition of Rs. 17,18,420/- (exact amount is Rs. 17,81,417/-) made by AO in the intimation issued u/s 143(1). Ld. AR then carried us to the copies of (i) Computation of Total Income, (ii) Audited P&L A/c, and (iii) Return of Income filed by assessee, placed at Pages 2-93 of Paper-Book. We re-produce below the relevant page of Computation of Total Income (Page 2 of Paper-Book) and the relevant page of Return of Income (Page 43 of Paper-Book):

Page 5 of 7 has, before filing return of income, voluntarily made an addition of Rs.

45,63,142/- under the caption “Add: Depreciation disallowed” and deduction of Rs. 27,81,725/- under the caption “Less: Allowed Depreciation”.

The net effect of these two adjustments is the addition of Rs. 17,81,417/-.

Then, the Ld. AR referred Page 41 of the intimation u/s 143(1) passed by AO to demonstrate that the Ld. AO has made addition of Rs. 17,81,417/- in the intimation so issued. Thus, Ld. AR submitted that the addition made by AO is nothing but a double addition of what the assessee had already made before filing return of income. Therefore, Ld. AR made a straightforward prayer, the addition made by AO deserves to be deleted as the same had already been made by assessee.

6.

Ld. DR for revenue understood the submission made by Ld. AR and left the issue to wisdom of bench without raising any dispute.

7.

After a careful consideration and on perusal of documents as noted above, we agree that the assessee has already made addition of Rs. 17,81,417/- by way of suitable adjustments in the return of income filed to department and the addition made by AO in the intimation u/s 143(1) has resulted in double addition which is liable to be deleted. Faced with this situation, we direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 17,81,417/-. The Ground No. 5 & 6 of assessee are allowed therefore.

Page 6 of 7 to adjudication of Ground No. 5 & 6.

Order pronounced in open court on 24/07/2025

More judgments on Section 32

All 2,762 judgments and leading authorities on Section 32 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →