M/S DIGITAL ILLUSION (INDIA )P LTD.,CHENNAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CORPORATE WARD-1(4), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 281/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 May 2024AY 2013-14Bench: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify if the interest was paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1). If verified, the disallowance should be deleted.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 24.68 Lacs representing provision for interest payable. The assessee claimed the interest was paid before the due date of filing the return, supported by bank statements and accounts. The CIT(A) disallowed it due to a lack of nexus.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of provision for interest payable is sustainable when the interest was paid before the due date of filing the return of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43B,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2013- 14 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 30-11-2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act on 29-11- 2019. In the assessment order, Ld. AO made addition of Rs.24.68 Lacs which represent provision of interest payable. During appellate proceedings, the assessee submitted that interest payable was paid on 12.07.2013 which was evident from bank statements and books of accounts. The Ld. CIT(A) did not allow the same on the ground that there was no nexus between the impugned disallowance and transaction reflected in the bank statement. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

2.

The Ld. AR submitted that disallowance as made u/s 43B was not sustainable since the interest was paid before due date of return of income u/s 139(1). The Ld. Sr. DR concurred that the same could be verified by Ld. AO.

3.

Considering the rival submissions, we direct Ld. AO to verify that the impugned interest was paid by the assessee before due date of return of income u/s 139(1) and if so, delete the impugned disallowance.

4.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 1st May, 2024 (MANU KUMAR GIRI) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) "ाियक सद4 / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद4 / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे4ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated : 01-05-2024 DS आदेशकीSितिलिपअ/ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant 2. " थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु=/CIT 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडBफाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 43B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →