M/S NOVA IRON AND STEEL LTD.,CHANDIGARH vs. DCIT, CC-1, CHANDIGARH

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी िव"म िसंह यादव, लेखा सद" एवं "ी परेश म. जोशी, "ाियक सद" BEFORE: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM & SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI, JM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 303/Chd/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 M/s Nova Iron and Steel Ltd. बनाम The DCIT 78, Industrial Aread, Phase-I Central Circle-1, Chandigarh Chandigarh "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACN0407F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA and Ms. Deepali Aggarwal, C.A राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 14/08/2024 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 30/08/2024 आदेश/Order PER PARESH M. JOSHI, J.M. : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee for A.Y. 2020-21. The corresponding previous year is 01/04/2019 to 31/03/2020. The appeal is filed under section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as and by way of second appeal under the Act. The assessee is aggrieved by order dt. 22/03/2023 passed in appeal No. 10765/2019-20 of Ld. CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act, which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. Factual Matrix

Further, an addition of Rs. 7,03,125/- was made under section 43B on account of 2.2 bonus payable which was also duly paid by the assessee before the due date of filing of income tax return. Further the assessee while filing the return of income, had inadvertently claimed depreciation at Rs. 1,03,13,420/- as against correct claim of Rs. 89,96,72,987/- as was duly disclosed in the Tax Audit Report (TAR). This fact was also placed before CPC Bengaluru, in response to proposed adjustment under section 143(1)(a). Being aggrieved by the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act, the assesee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and broadly took up following core issues arising out intimation dt. 25/11/2021 under section 143(1).

(i) That the intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by CPC Bengaluru is against law and facts on the file in as much as they were not justified to arbitrarily add an amount of Rs. 51,42,946/- deposited on account of late deposit of PF and ESI despite the fact that the same was duly paid before the due date of filing of Income Tax Return. (This issue is not pressed)

(ii) That the intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 issued by CPC Bengaluru is against law and facts in as much as they were not justified to arbitrarily add an amount of Rs. 7,03,125/- deposited on account of bonus payable despite the fact that the same was deposited on or before the due date of filing of Return of Income.

(iii) The CPC was further not justified not to consider and allowing the claim of depreciation of Rs. 89,96,72,987/- as duly disclosed in the Tax Audit Report as against wrongly claimed in the return of income at Rs. 1,03,13,420/- despite the fact that same had been claimed before CPC vide letter dt. 29.09. 21. The Ld. CIT(A) in so far as ‘issues and grounds’ raised in the present appeal 3. before us is concerned has held as under:

“6. In the ITR the assessee has claimed depreciation of Rs. 1,03,13,420/- which was allowed by the CPC while processing u/s 143(1) whereas in this ground of appeal the assessee has claimed depreciation Rs. 89,96,72,987/-. In the written submission during the appellate proceedings it was stated that depreciation of Rs. 89,96,72,987/- was claimed in the tax audit report whereas the appellant has made claim of Rs. 1,03,13,420/- inadvertently in the ITR. On consideration facts of the case, it is found that CPC has processed the return as per the particulars furnished in the ITR in respect of depreciation (vide Schedule BP point no. 12(i). Therefore the CPC was justified in considering depreciation of Rs. 1,03,13,420/-. The appellant could have furnished revised return once it has discovered the above omission /wrong statement as per the provisions of section 139(5) of the Act. Accordingly no merit is found in such ground of appeal taken by the appellant. The same is hereby dismissed. “ That the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order has not given any finding on issue of 4. addition of amount of Rs. 7,03,125/- deposited on account of bonus payable despite the fact that the same was deposited on or before the due date of filing of return of income.

No. 18 of Form No. 3CA/3CD audit report under section 44AB of the Act, wherein all material particulars of depreciation allowable as per the Act, in respect of each asset or block of assets is shown which aggregates to Rs. 89,96,72,987/- and ot 1,03,13,420/- as claimed in ITR. It was contended that the Revenue authorities are to compute true and correct income by allowing all claims as admissible. Hence denying the claim of depreciation at Rs. 89,96,72,987/- is unjustified and bad in law. It was contended that their repeated pleas have not been considered by the Ld. CIT(A) which is genuine. The Ld. AR then placed reliance on judgement of Hon’ble Delhi High 89,96,72,987/- and ought to have granted relief as this is the correct figure as per TAR. The figure of Rs. 1,03,13,420/- is incorrectly stated in ITR through inadvertence. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have carefully perused the TAR and ought to have given relief, by not doing so Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and we set aside the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) on issue of depreciation only. In so far as issue of payment of bonus is considered Ld. CIT(A) ought to have dealt with the issue but has failed to do so. No speaking order is passed on this issue. Therefore we remand this issue of payment of bonus of Rs. 7,03,125/- back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to deal with this issue according to law and pass a speaking order.

Order

आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/