SAMEER MALHOTRA,DELHI vs. ITO WARD 51(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3847/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 August 2024AY 2021-22Bench: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the appeal to the file of the Assessing Officer (AO). The AO was directed to re-examine the assessee's contentions regarding the clerical mistake in the tax audit report. If the contentions are found to be true, the AO is instructed to delete the impugned addition.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the Ld. CIT(A)'s order for AY 2021-22, which confirmed the AO's disallowance of Rs. 8,17,660/-. This disallowance stemmed from an alleged inconsistency between the amount reported in the income tax return and the tax audit report concerning proforma credits, drawbacks, and refunds. The assessee contended that the discrepancy was an inadvertent clerical mistake made by the tax auditor.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of Rs. 8,17,660/- due to an alleged inconsistency between the return and the tax audit report was justified, or if it was an inadvertent clerical error by the tax auditor. Also, whether the Ld. CIT(A) erred in charging interest under Sections 234B and 234D.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 234B,Section 234D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD

Hearing: 03.07.2024

सुनवाईक�तारीख/ Date of hearing: 03.07.2024 29.08.2024 उ�ोषणाक�तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) dated 27/10/2023 for the AY 2021-22. Assessee raised the following grounds: -

1. “That the Ld. CIT( A) has erred in law and on facts, in confirming the action of Ld. AO, in making disallowance of Rs.8,17,660/- on account of inconsistency in amount mentioned in return at SI. No.5(b) of Part A 0I “The proforma credits, drawbacks, refund of duty of customs or excise or service tax, or refund of sales tax or value added tax, or refund of GST, where such credits, drawbacks or refunds are admitted as due by the authorities concerned” and tax audit report.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not acknowledging the submissions made by the appellant 1

I.T.A.No.3847/Del/2023 and inadvertent mistake in the tax audit report made by the tax auditor.

3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CTT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234B and 234D of Income Tax Act, 1961.

4. That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”

2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that in the present case addition of Rs.8,17,660/- has been made vide intimation order dated 11.08.2022 on alleged discrepancy in tax audit report and ITR filed by the assessee. It is submitted that internal page 20 of intimation order dated 11.08.2022 would show that addition as been made for "There is inconsistency in amount mentioned in return at SI. No. 5(b) of Part A 01 "The proforma credits, drawbacks, refund of duty of customs or excise or service tax, or refund of sales tax or value added tax, or refund of GST, where such credits, drawbacks or refunds are admitted as due by the authorities concerned' and Tax audit report amounting to Rs.8,17,660/-.

2.2 Ld. Counsel submitted that the impugned amount has been wrongly mentioned in online tax audit report filed by the tax

I.T.A.No.3847/Del/2023 auditor due to inadvertent clerical mistake. The amount has been inadvertently mentioned as Rs.8,17,660/- in schedule 16b of the tax audit report as against nil.

3.

Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below.

4.

In view of the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee I feel it appropriate to restore this appeal to the file of the AO to examine the contentions of the assessee and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. If the contentions of the assessee are true the AO is directed to delete the addition made.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29/08/2024

More judgments on Section 234B

All 10,214 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →