Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was against an order related to Assessment Year 2017-18. The Assessing Officer (AO) made three additions to the assessee's income: one regarding gross receipts, another concerning an excess claim towards Provident Fund (PF), and a third for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF & ESIC.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee was not pressing the addition related to delayed deposit of PF & ESIC. For the addition concerning gross receipts, the Tribunal directed the AO to verify the details. For the addition related to excess PF claim, the Tribunal also remanded the issue to the AO for verification, stating the onus is on the assessee to establish the facts.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made by the AO towards gross receipts and excess PF claim were justified. Determination of the correct amount of gross receipts and PF claim for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
Sections Cited
143(3), 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI K.M. ROY
ORDER PER NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JM:
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 24/03/2025 impugned herein passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi [in short, “Ld.Commissioner”] u/sec. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) for the Assessment Year (for short, “AY”) 2017-18.
2 ITA.No. 232/NAG/2025
The AO vide assessment order dated 28/12/2019 u/sec. 143(3) of the Act has made three additions mentioned below:- i) ` 2,52,91,556/– on account of gross receipts as per the books of accounts of the assessee and as per Form No. 26AS. ii) ` 23,54,477/– on account of alleged excess claim towards PF iii) ` 15,05,346/– on account of delay in depositing the employees’ contribution qua PF & ESIC
The assessee is not pressing the addition of ` 15,05,346/-, thus requires no adjudication.
Coming to the addition of ` 2,52,91,556/– on account of difference between the gross receipts as per the books of account of the assessee and as per Form No.26AS. It appears from the assessment order that assessee has duly filed the chart showing the income from parties as per books and Form No. 26AS. However, as per the AO without any supporting documentary evidence, whereas assessee from the documents filed in paper book demonstrated about the filing of all the relevant details and documents and also tried to justify the difference in receipts. At this stage, we observe that the case of the assessee qua this particular addition prima- facie seems to be in favour of the assessee. However, as the ld.AO has held clearly that the submissions filed by chart showing the income from parties as per books and as per Form No. 26AS and the submissions filed by the assessee were without any supporting documentary evidence and, therefore, for just and proper decision
3 ITA.No. 232/NAG/2025 of the case and substantial justice, we are inclined to direct the AO to verify the details already filed and/or to be filed, and decide the issue qua difference between the gross receipts and Form No. 26AS accordingly. The assessee is also directed to disclose the treatment given to the excess TDS claimed. We clarify that we are remanding this issue to the file of the AO for just verification but not to roving enquiry.
Coming to the addition of ` 23,54,477/-, admittedly, the assessee has paid salary of ` 2,73,32,632/–. However, the AO considered the salary of ` 40,78,986/- which was paid by the assessee as claimed for a particular unit/project, but not entirety. However, still the AO by considering the said amount as total salary to the profit and loss account, ultimately came to the conclusion that the assessee should have claimed the amount upto the statutory limit of 27% of salaries which comes to ` 11,01,326/- as against ` 34,55,803/- as claimed by the assessee in its profit and loss account. The AO consequently, made the addition of ` 23,54,477/– being excess claimed towards PF (` 34,55,803 – 11,01,326) and added back to the income of the assessee. From the profit and loss account, the amount as claimed by the assessee to the tune of ` 39,79,46,698/– appears to be worked on contract cost, but not showing as a salary as claimed by the assessee. Therefore, in order to cut-short the litigation and for just and proper justice and substantial justice, we are inclined to remand the issue as well to the AO for verification of the said aspect, suffice to say the onus is upon the assessee to establish the relevant facts.
4 ITA.No. 232/NAG/2025 6. In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 20.06.2025.