PUNCH RATNA FASTENERS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI, DELHI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI MANISH AGARWAL[Assessment Year : 2018-19]
PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM :
The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated
16.05.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), Meerut
[“Ld.CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. 288/2013-14 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of the assessment order dated 17.02.2021 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Act pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Cold & hot forged Automotive components and fasteners and had filed its return of income on 28.10.2018, declaring total income of INR
28,88,88,610/-.
Subsequently, the said Return of Income was selected for Complete scrutiny under CASS for the issues namely, (i) expenditure of personal nature and (ii) foreign financial interest. Subsequently, notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was served upon the assessee on 22.09.2019. Thereafter, notices u/s 142(1) of the Income-tax Act
1961 were issued, in response to which, the assessee submitted copies of relevant documents and explanations online through e- filing portal. After considering the submissions made by the assessee and all relevant materials available on record, income of the assessee was assessed at INR 29,16,01,890/- vide assessment order dated
17.02.2021 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act.
3. Against the said order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 16.05.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by taking following grounds of appeal:-
“That the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is against law and facts. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating the issue before him and thereby confirmed the addition of Rs. 16,30,790/- made by the Ld. AO by making disallowance u/s 37 at the time of processing of return, although this amount of donation was already disallowed and added back by the appellant in its income while filing its return of income. Hence the addition made resulted in double taxation of the same amount. 3. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 10,82,481/- made by the Ld. AO by making disallowance M/s 36(i)(va) on account of late deposit of employees contribution of PF & ESI. Ld CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition even WHARE the delay was of few days only. 4. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, amend OR withdraw any of the ground of appeal at the time of hearing.”
Ground of appeal No. 1 is general in nature and needs no adjudication.
Heard the contentions of both parties at length and perused the material available on record. With respect to Ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee, it is observed that the amount of donation has already been added back to the total income as per computation of income. However, the CPC has further made on this account in the Intimation order passed u/s 143(1) of the Act. After considering the facts, the claim of the assessee appears to be correct. Therefore, the AO is directed to verify the claim of the assessee and delete the addition if the contention of the assessee is found correct. With these directions, Ground of appeal No. 2 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Regarding Ground of appeal No. 3 raised by the assessee wherein the assessee claimed that Employees contribution towards PF and ESI was deposited well within due date of filing of return of income however, the dates were inadvertently reported as delayed by the Auditor in the Tax audit report. Heard the parties and after considering overall facts of the issue involved, we direct the AO for verification of claim made by the assessee and if the contention of the assessee is found correct, no addition is required to be made, otherwise disallowance made by the ld. CPC be confirmed as has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. CIT reported in (2022) 448 ITR 518 (SC). With these directions, Ground of appeal No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 24.12.2025. (SATBEER SINGH GODARA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date:- 25.02.2026
*Amit Kumar, Sr.P.S*