BHUPINDER PAUL MAHAJAN,MANDI V. DCIT CPC, BENGALURU

ITA 1194/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Bhupindre Paul Mahajan against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2021-22. The primary issue was the disallowance of a GST amount of Rs. 1,92,62,395/- reported in the Tax Audit Report, which was not deposited by the assessee until the filing of the Audit Report. The assessee argued that Rs. 65 lacs of this amount was paid before the due date of filing the return under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, and thus should be excluded from the disallowance. The Tribunal found that the CIT (Appeals) had erred in not considering the actual payment made by the assessee and directed a verification of the payment by the AO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 772270 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK VARDHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: VISHAL MOHAN
• Section: 154; 43B

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 1194/CHD/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Shri Bhupindre Paul Mahajan, Mahajan Building, Ratti, Balh, Mandi (HP). Vs The DCIT, CPC, Bengaluru. èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABYPM7732L अपीलाथȸ/Appellant Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent Assessee by : Shri Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Abhinav, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 07.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.08.2025 PHYSICAL HEARING O R D E R PER RAJ PAL YADAV, VP The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT (A)’] dated 13.11.2024 passed for assessment year 2021-22. 2. The brief facts of the case are that assessee has filed his return of income declaring net taxable income at Rs.2,23,14,610/-. This return was processed and taxable Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1194/CHD/2024 A.Y.2021-22 2 income was determined at Rs.2,88,13,610/-. In the Tax Audit Report, the ld. Auditor has made an observation that GST of Rs.1,92,62,395/- was not deposited till the filing of the Audit Report. The CPC Bangalore, on the basis of this Audit Report has made the disallowance of alleged GST amount. 3. The ld. counsel for the assessee, at the very outset submitted that assessee has made payment of Rs.65 lacs before the due date of filing of the return u/s 139(1), therefore, this amount of Rs. 65 lacs ought to be excluded from the total component of GST calculated and reported in Audit Report. He further submitted that assessee itself disallowed a sum of Rs.1,27,62,395/-. 4. With the assistance of ld. Representative, we have gone through the record carefully. Section 43B contemplates that deduction of this nature of payment is to be allowed on actual payment basis. In other words, if assessee has actually paid the GST amount, then only deduction u/s 43B would be allowable to the assessee. The assessee has actually paid Rs.65 lacs before the due date of filing of the return. Thus, it is entitled for this amount. The ld. CIT (Appeals) has failed to Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1194/CHD/2024 A.Y.2021-22 3 appreciate this fact from the copy of the return and instead picked up the figure from the Audit Report. 5. The assessee has filed an application u/s 154 which has been rejected. We are of the view that ld. CIT (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that if GST was paid before the due date of filing of the return, then it is an allowable deduction. Therefore, disallowance ought not to be there. 6. On due consideration of these facts, we are of the view that this issue deserves to be relegated to the AO only for a limited purpose to verify whether Rs.65 lacs have actually been paid by the assessee before the due date of filing of the return. In case it emerges out that it was actually paid, then deduction of Rs.65 lacs is to be allowed to the assessee. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 27.08.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (KRINWANT SAHAY) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT “Poonam” Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1194/CHD/2024 A.Y.2021-22 4 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar Printed from counselvise.com "