ALUMILITE ARCHITECTURALS LIMITED,MUMBAI V. ADIT, CPC, BANGALORE, BANGALORE

ITA 122/MUM/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Alumilite Architecturals Ltd., the appellant, contesting the disallowance of certain expenditures by the Assessing Officer, which were upheld by the CIT(A). The disallowances included Rs. 32,842 for delayed crediting of employees' Provident Fund contributions and Rs. 70,98,283 for late payment of GST. The appellant argued that these amounts were not claimed as deductions in the profit and loss account and thus should not have been disallowed. The Tribunal found that the necessary verification was not done at the CPC or CIT(A) level and thus restored the matter to the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 126307 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Other Referred Cases: CIT Vs Vinay Cements Ltd, Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Noble and Hewitt (1) P. Ltd., Commissioner of Income Tax-8 V/S Ovira Logistics Pvt. Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM KRISHN KEDIA
• Assessee Lawyers: VARUN JAIN; WAY OF TAX; DUTY; CESS OR FEE; BY WHATEVER NAME
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Jurisdictional AO; Grounds of appeal; Dismissed; National Faceless Appeal; Commissioner; Disallowing; Intimation u/s 143(1); Commissioner of Income Tax; Statistical purposes; Due date of filing; Explanation; Site verification
• Section: 250; 28

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SMT. RENU JAUHRI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 122/MUM/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2019-20) M/s. Alumilite Architecturals Ltd. 502, Dhiraj Chambers, Hazarimal Somani Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400001 v/s. बिधम CIT, Central Circle – 1(1)(1), Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No: AABCA0567C Appellant/अपीलधर्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवधदी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee by: Shri Varun Jain रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue by: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia सुिवधई की िधरीख / Date of Hearing 22.04.2025 घोर्णध की िधरीख/Date of Pronouncement 23.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER RENU JAUHRI [A.M.] :- This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Mumbai/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 28.02.2023 passed P a g e | 2 ITA No. 122/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Alumilite Architecturals Ltd. u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as “Act”] for Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2019-20. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “Ground No. 1: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the first appellate authority ought to have been considered that the learned Assessing Officer has erred in adding a sum of Rs.32,842/- pertaining to provident fund contribution. being, disallowance of the expenditure indicated in the Audit Report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return on account of 'any sum received from the employees as contribution to any provident fund, to the extent not credited to the employees account on or before the due date' without considering the fact that payment is made before the due date of filing the return. The Assessee relies upon the Honourable Supreme Court decision of CIT Vs Vinay Cements Ltd (313 ITR (st) 1) reported in 213CTR 268. Ground No. 2: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the first appellate authority ought to have been considered that the learned Assessing Officer has erred in adding a sum of Rs.70,98,283/ pertaining to GST payable being, disallowance of the amount indicated in Audit Report but not taken into account in computing the total income in the return on account of 'any sum payable by the Assessee by way of tax, duty, cess or fee, by whatever name called, under any law for the time being in force' shall be allowed only in computing the income referred to in section 28 of that previous year in which such sum is actually paid by him without considering the fact that the Assessee did not debit the amount to the profit and loss account as an expenditure nor did the Assessee claim any deduction in respect of the amount since the Assessee was following mercantile system of accounting, the question of disallowing the deduction not claimed does not arise. The Assessee relied upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in case of the Commissioner of Income Tax v/s Noble and Hewitt (1) P. Ltd., Bombay High Court in case of the commissioner of Income Tax-8 V/S Ovira Logistics Pvt. Ltd.” 3. At the outset, it is seen that the appeal is delayed by 18 months. A petition for condonation of delay has been filed stating that the assessee was not P a g e | 3 ITA No. 122/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Alumilite Architecturals Ltd. informed about the dismissal of its appeal by the previous consultant. After the appointment of the new consultant. the status of the case was ascertained by him, and hence the appeal was filed after an unintended delay of 619 days. Considering the explanation of the assessee, we hereby condone the delay in filing of the appeal. 4. Brief facts are that the assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 5,92,99,240/- on 22.09.2020. An intimation u/s 143(1)(a) was issued by the CPC on 24.12.2020 after making adjustments to the returned income as under: i. Disallowance of Rs. 32,842/- on account of delay in crediting employees’ contribution to their Provident Fund (PF) account before the due date. ii. 0Disallowance of Rs. 70,98,283/- on account of late payment of GST, etc. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the CPC, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), which has also been dismissed vide order dated 28.02.2023. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. Before us, Ld. AR has requested for restoring the issues back to the jurisdictional AO for proper verification as no compliance could be made before P a g e | 4 ITA No. 122/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Alumilite Architecturals Ltd. Ld. CIT(A) and the adjustment was made by CPC without giving opportunity to the assessee. Ld. DR has not objected to the proposition of the Ld. AR. 7. We are of the view that since necessary verification has not been done at the level of the CPC or Ld. CIT(A), therefore, in the interest of justice, we restore the matter to the jurisdictional AO requisite verification. He is directed to decide the issues after giving due opportunity to the assessee. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 23.04.2025. Sd/- Sd/- KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL RENU JAUHRI (न्यधनयक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER) (लेखधकधर सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Place: म ुंबई/Mumbai दिन ुंक /Date 23.04.2025 अननक ेत स ुंह र जपूत/ स्टेनो आदेश की प्रनतनलनि अग्रेनित/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 4. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण /DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. गार्ड फाईल / Guard file. सत्यानित प्रनत //True Copy// P a g e | 5 ITA No. 122/Mum/2025 A.Y. 2019-20 Alumilite Architecturals Ltd. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सहायक िंजीकार (Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीलीय अनर्करण/ ITAT, Bench, Mumbai. "