Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & SHRI JAGADISH
M/s. Data Patterns (India) Ltd., The Assessing Officer, H-9, Block-2, Ground Floor, Vs. Corporate Circle-1(1), SIPCOT IT Park, 4th Main Road, Chennai. Kelambakkam, Chennai – 603 103. [PAN: AAACI 6684D] (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथF की ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri M.K Rangasamy, C.A HIथF की ओर से /Respondent by : Shri M. Murali, CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 05.06.2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 21.11.2023 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) r.w.s 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 10.07.2020.
The assessee-company has filed its return of income on 31.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 2,58,01,957/-. The return of income was processed u/s. 143(1) determining total income of Rs.4,84,52,856/- by making adjustment of disallowance u/s. 43B of the Act of Rs.1,95,30,970/- and disallowances u/s 36(1)(via) Rs. 31,19,929/- . The assessment was picked up for limited scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act without making any addition.
The assesse before Ld. CIT(A) has submitted that the assessee has already made disallowance at Rs. 1,95,30,970/- and added under Section 43B of the Act of in the return of income, but AO in the assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act has taken the income as per intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act in which double disallowances u/s 43B of the Act was made. The assessee submitted that amount of Rs.1,95,30,970/- was wrongly keyed in column No.Part-A-OI S.No.6(c) and 6(q) instead of keying in Part A-OI S.No.11(b), 11(c) and 11(f)
.and the A.O in the order u/s 143(3) of the Act was required to correct the same. Similarly, for disallowance u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act of Rs.31,19,929/- the assessee made the same submission. The Ld. CIT(A) in regard to disallowance of Rs. 1,95,30,970/- has dismissed the appeal as the assessee has revised the return keying in the disallowances in correct column after due date of filling revised return and therefore, CPC has correctly not considered the revised return.
As regard to disallowance of Rs.31,19,929/- u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act, the Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Checkmate Services P. Ltd. v. CIT [in Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022] has held that the employee contribution of PF and ESIC has been paid after the due date prescribed in those acts and therefore, has correctly disallowed the same and therefore, dismissed the ground.
The Ld. AR before us has argued that the A.O in the assessment passed order u/s. 143(3) of the Act after scrutiny should have considered the details submitted that the assessee has already added Rs. 1,95,30,970/- u/s. 43B of the Act in the total income in the return itself and further addition again made while processing u/s. 143(1) of the Act is the double addition.
The Ld. DR has relied on the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the rival submissions, perused the copy of return of income filed, section 143(1) intimation, Form-3CD and Section 143(3) order. The CPC while processing order u/s. 143(1) of the Act has added Rs.1,95,30,970/- u/s. 43B of the Act as the assessee has keyed in amount disallowable u/s 43B in wrong coloumn. As the A.O in the order u/s. 143(3) of the Act is required to determine correct income, he should have corrected the double disallowances made u/s. 43B of the Act in intimation u/s. 143(1), if he had accepted the return of income u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The A.O is therefore, directed to reduce the disallowance of Rs.1,95,30,970/- which has already been added in the return of income.
As regard to disallowance of Rs. 31,19,929/-, the assessee has submitted that it has wrongly keyed in figures in column No. Part-A-OI S.No.6(c) and 6(q) instead of keying in Part A-OI S.No.11(b), 11(c) and 11(f). It was seen that late payment of employee contribution to PF and ESI of Rs.31,19,929/- was not added in return of income. The assessee in the submission has argued if such payment has been made before due date of filing of return of income, the same are allowable as held by various courts. We do not agree with the assessee’s submission as this issue has now been settled by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Checkmate Services P. Ltd. v. CIT, as correctly relied by Ld. CIT(A). In view of above, the disallowance made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act of Rs. 31,19,329/- is upheld.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed.
Order pronounced on 05th June, 2024.