PATIYIL BALAKRISHNAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 28(2)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5572/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 November 2019AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the disallowance of salary was not adjudicated by the CIT(A) as no ground was taken. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the salary disallowance issue after providing an opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was assessed at Rs. 23.50 Lacs after additions, significantly higher than the returned income of Rs. 6.97 Lacs. Additions included disallowances under Section 43B for unpaid duties/taxes and for unsubstantiated salary/wages.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of salary and wages was justified and whether the CIT(A) should have adjudicated this issue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43B,Section 37(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari- Ld. DR
For Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari- Ld. DR

आयकरअपील सं./ (िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year:2013-14) Patiyil Balakrishnan I.T.O., 28(2)(1) बनाम/ B-11, 1/4 Shiv Palm Beach Vashi, Mumbai-400 703 Vs. Mumbai-400 706. �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No. AAFPB-0334-F (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��थ� / Respondent) : अपीलाथ� की ओर से/ Appellant by : None ��थ�कीओरसे/Respondent by : Shri Akhtar H. Ansari- Ld. DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 14/11/2019 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 20/11/2019 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member): - 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year [in short referred to as ‘AY’] 2013-14 contest the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-26, Mumbai [in short referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], Appeal No. CIT(A)- 26/IT-345/2015-16 dated 15/06/2018 qua confirmation of certain additions.

Patiyil Balakrishnan Assessment Year-2013-14 2. None has appeared for assessee and no valid adjournment application is on record. Left with no option, we proceed with the matter ex- parte qua the assessee after perusal of material on record and after hearing the revenue.

3.

Facts on record would reveal that the assessee being resident individual stated to be engaged as civil and mechanical contractor was assessed for year under consideration u/s 143(3) on 28/01/2016 wherein the income of the assessee was determined at Rs.23.50 Lacs after certain additions as against returned income of Rs.6.97 Lacs e-filed by the assessee on 25/11/2013. One of the disallowances of Rs.7.39 Lacs was u/s 43B, being duties and taxes debited to the Profit & Loss Account but not paid before due date of filing of return. Another disallowance of Rs.9.12 Lacs was on account of unsubstantiated salary & wages.

4.

The learned first appellate authority deleted disallowance u/s 43B since the assessee had not debited the taxes and duties in the Profit & Loss Account. However, disallowance on account of salary and wages was not adjudicated in view of the fact that no such ground was taken before learned first appellate authority.

5.

Upon perusal of grounds taken by the assessee before first appellate authority, we find that it was the contention of the assessee that since the income was offered under presumptive taxation, no disallowance u/s 28 to 37 would be warranted. The disallowance of salary, prima facie, is under Section 37(1). Therefore, we direct Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue of salary disallowance after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to Patiyil Balakrishnan Assessment Year-2013-14 the assessee. For the said purpose, the matter stand remitted back to the file of Ld. CIT(A).

6.

Resultantly, the appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our above order. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th November, 2019 Sd/- Sd/- (C.N. Prasad) (Manoj Kumar Aggarwal) �ाियक सद� / Judicial Member लेखा सद� / Accountant Member मुंबई Mumbai; िदनांकDated : 20/11/2019 Sr.PS:-**PP,SPS आदेश की �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ�/ The Appellant 1. ��थ�/ The Respondent 2. आयकरआयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A) 3. आयकरआयु�/ CIT– concerned 4. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गाड�फाईल / Guard File 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 43B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →