DISTRICT COOPERETIV BANK LTD,BARABANKI V. .DCIT/ACIT-3, LUCKNOW- NEW

ITA 178/LKW/2022

AI Insights

The case involves the District Cooperative Bank Barabanki appealing against an order from the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which confirmed an addition of Rs.3,44,806 to the bank's income for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The addition was initially made by the Centralized Processing Center (CPC) on the grounds that the Employees' share of contribution to the Provident Fund was deposited belatedly. The bank contested this, arguing that the deposit was made on time, specifically before the due date of 15.12.2018, and that the Tax Audit Report contained a typographical error regarding the due date. The ITAT found merit in the bank's argument that the matter requires factual verification and thus restored the issue to the AO for a detailed examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 31912 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 17-10-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji [167 ITR 471-SC], Sreenivas Charitable Trust Vs. DCIT [2006-ITR 357-MAD], Vijay Vishion Meghani Vs. DCIT [2017-398 ITR 250-BOM]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUNIL KUMAR RAJWANSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: B. P. YADAV; COST ACCOUNTANT
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Charitable institution

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH “B”, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.178/LKW/2022 Assessment Year: 2019-20 District Cooperative Bank Barabanki Maka Satrikh Faizabad-Lucknow Road Barabanki v. DCIT/ACIT-3 Lucknow - New TAN/PAN:AAAAD2777N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri B. P. Yadav, Cost Accountant Respondent by: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, D.R. O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, A.M.: (A) Appeal in I.T.A. No.178/LKO/2022 has been filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2019-20 against the impugned appellate order dated 21.06.2022 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Lucknow- 2/10046/2020-21 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“NFAC” for short]. The grounds of appeal are as under: 1. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the law that the provisions contained in section 143(1)(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961 does not empower the Assessing Officer to make an addition to the returned income of the assesse, which are in the nature of debate and discussion and which needs an explanation from the assesse. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.3,44,806/-made by the CPC to the ITA No.178/LKW/2022 Page 2 of 4 returned income of the assesse on the ground that the Employees' share of contribution to Provident Fund was belatedly deposit to their respective account ignoring the fact that the same was very much deposited on 30.11.2018 very much well before the due date which was falling due on 15.12.2018. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the fact that the due date of making deposit of Employee's share of contribution to their respective account was falling on 15.12.2018 but the same was inadvertently mentioned by the Tax Auditors as 15.12.2019 in their Tax Audit Report filed in Form 3CA- CD. 4. The Ld. A.O. erred on facts and in law in not providing the appellant any such opportunity to have his say and to make compliance of the reasons being relied upon by him while creating tax demand against the assessee. 5. The appellant reserves his right to advance such other grounds before or at the time of hearing which he may consider fit and appropriate, for which he craves leaves to amend, alter or otherwise modify the grounds appearing hereinabove with kind permission of the Hon'ble Bench. (B) This appeal filed by the assessee is belated having regard to time prescribed under section 253(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short). An application has been filed from the assessee’s side, seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal, on the ground that the Authorized Representative for the assessee (Shri B.P. Yadav himself, who is also representing the assessee before us), was seriously ill and was undergoing treatment in Medanta Hospital, Lucknow. The ld. D.R. for Revenue did not object to this request. In view of the foregoing, we are satisfied, within the meaning of section 253(5) of the Act, that there was sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. ITA No.178/LKW/2022 Page 3 of 4 Accordingly, we condone the delay and the appeal is admitted for hearing on merits. (C) In the course of appellate proceedings in ITAT, a paper book containing the following particulars was filed from the assessee’s side: 1. Copy of Tax Audit Report for A.Y. 2019-2020. 2. Copy of Delay Condonation. 3. Copy of Affidavit of Mr. B.P.Yadav. 4. Copy of Medical Certificate. 5. Copy of e-filing receipt. 6. Copy of Revised Form 36. 7. Case law in the cases of: (i) Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji [167 ITR 471-SC]. (ii) Sreenivas Charitable Trust Vs. DCIT [2006-ITR 357-MAD]. (iii) Vijay Vishion Meghani Vs. DCIT [2017-398 ITR 250-BOM]. (D) At the time of hearing before us, the ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee submitted that the addition of Rs.3,44,806/- on account of Employees’ share of contribution to the Provident Fund for the month of November, 2018 was made by the AO, and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) due to failure on their part to appreciate that there was inadvertent typographical error in the Tax Audit Report in Form 3CA-CD, in which due date of deposit was erroneously typed as 16.12.2019, whereas actually it was 15.12.2018. He submitted that the addition should be deleted. The ld. D.R. for the Revenue submitted that this matter ITA No.178/LKW/2022 Page 4 of 4 should be restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of typographical mistake, stated to be the cause of addition. We have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. We are in agreement with the submissions of the ld. D.R. of the Revenue that the matter requires factual verification at the end of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, impugned appellate order dated 21.06.2022 is set aside, and the issue relating to addition of the aforesaid amount of Rs.3,44,806/- is restored back to the file of the AO with the direction to pass de novo order in accordance with law on this limited issue, after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. (E) In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13/12/2023. Sd/- Sd/- [KUL BHARAT] [ANADEE NATH MISSHRA] VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:13/12/2023 JJ: Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR By order Assistant Registrar "