MOHD NAYEEM,JHANSI vs. ITO WARD 2(3)(5), JHANSI, JHANSI
In the result, grounds raised by the assessee including additional ground are remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer
ITA 36/AGR/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021
Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2020-21 Mohd Nayeem Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 74, Sadar Bazar Ward 2(3)(5), Jhanshi Jhansi Pan : Acfpn3382F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Nitin Goyal, Advocate & Sh. Amit Goyal, Advocate Department By Sh. Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 18.02.2026 Order Per : S. Rifaur Rahman: The Assessee Has Preferred This Appeal Against The Order Of Learned Cit(Appeals) -2, Chennai Dated 05.12.2024 U/S. 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act” For Short) For The Assessment Year 2020- 21. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice, Brief Facts Of The Case Relating To The Issues Are, Ld. Ar Submitted That The Assessee In Summary Assessment U/S 143(1) Of The Act Based On The Audit Report Disallowed The Amount Wherein The Auditor Has Declared In Form No. 3Cd That There Is Outstanding Payment Due Of Rs. 81,08,561/- To Gst, Based On The Above Audit Report,Cpc Has Disallowed The Above Said Outstanding U/S 43B Of The Act.
Section 143(1)Section 145Section 250Section 43B
Section Nature of liability
Amount
Tax, Duty, Cess, Fee
GST
8108561
etc
(State
No whether sales tax, goods &
service Tax, customs duty, excise duty or any other indirect tax, levy, cess, impost, etc., is passed through the profit and loss account.)
That at the outset there had been no requirement of such remark in the audit report if all such
