Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 06.07.2022 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi for A.Y. 2017-18.
2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: “1.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT – NFAC erred in confirming the addition as made by the DCIT CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act of Rs. 93,18,776/- to the Total income of the assessee even when an amount of Rs. 86,71,111/- has already been disallowed by the appellant company in its Return of income as filed. Thus, the said adjustment to the total income amounts to double addition. The addition so made by the Ld. A.O. of Rs. 86,71,111/- and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) without considering the submission filed before him on said issue requires to be deleted in full.
M/s. Sanghvi Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 2 – 1.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT –NFAC erred in confirming the addition as made by the DCIT CPC of Rs. 6,47,664/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of employees contribution to PF while passing order u/s 143(1) of the Act even when the said amount was paid before the due date of filing of the return of total income under section 139(1) of the Act and moreso ignoring the order of Hon’ble Jurisdictional ITAT Indore Bench quoted before him in the submission filed by the appellant and copy of same was also attached with the submission.
The assessee reserve its right to add alter and modify the ground of appeal
03. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT – NFAC erred in confirming the disallowance as made by the Ld. DCIT CPC of Rs. 6,47,664/- u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of employee contribution to PF/ESIC while passing an order u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act even when the said item of disallowance is debatable in nature and outside the purview of adjustments u/s 143(1) of the act. The disallowance so made therefore requires to be deleted in full.”
3. The assessee is a Private Limited Company and filed its return of income under Section 139(1) on 30.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs. 12,13,68,290/-. While passing the order under Section 143(1) dated 16.03.2019 the DCIT, CPC Bangalore added amount of Rs. 93,18,775/- to the total income of the assessee company by making the addition / disallowance under Section 37 of the Act amounting to Rs. 4,43,561/- which was disallowed in computation of return of the assessee for A.Y. 2018-19 and disallowance of Rs. 32,38,307/- under Section 40A (7) of the Income Tax Act which was also disallowed in computation of return of assessee for A.Y. 2018-19 and also amount of Rs. 49,89,443/- under Section 43B of the Act which was also disallowed in computation of income for A.Y. 2018-19. The DCIT, CPC Bangalore also made addition of the amount of employees’ contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC under Section 2(24) of the Income Tax Act.
M/s. Sanghvi Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 3 – 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
The Ld. A.R. submitted that the Assessing Officer as per finalization of assessment under Section 143(2) has already considered all the aspects and finalize the assessment without making any addition to the extent of Rs. 6,47,664/- under Section 36(1)(va). But the issue is covered against the assessee. As regards, addition of Rs. 93,18,776/- when an amount of Rs. 86,71,111/- was also been disallowed by the assessee company in its return of income and the same has been taken cognizance b the Assessing Officer under Section 143(2) order then the CIT(A) should have taken cognizance of the same. As the same order was passed by the Assessing Officer.
The Ld. D.R. submitted that this appeal was in respect of order passed under Section 143(1) and the order which passed subsequently by the Assessing Officer was not there on record.
We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the order under Section 143(2) was passed at the time of appellate proceedings held before the CIT(A) but the assessee as well as the Department has not pointed out that the issue was already settled by the Revenue. Since the issue was already decided in favour of the assessee by the Revenue under order passed under Section 143(2) the same cannot be reopen and M/s. Sanghvi Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2017-18 - 4 – therefore, the CIT(A) was not right in confirming the said addition. The order under Section 143(2) was passed on 13.12.2019. In result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose to the extent that the order passed under Section 143(2) was already verified the issue and granted relief to the assessee.
In result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced on 14/03/2023 by placing the result on the Notice Board as per Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rule, 1963. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 14/03/2023