Alloy Cast Pvt Ltd, New Delhi V. ITO WARD - 2(2), New Delhi

ITA 1611/DEL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9109 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 23-09-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV PUNDIR
• Keywords: TDS; Set aside; FORM 26AS
• Section: 43B; 143(1); 13; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI SMC-1 BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING ) BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1611/DEL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2018-19 ALLOY CAST PVT.LTD., FLAT NO.915, 9 TH FLOOR, INDRA PRAKASH BUILDING, 21, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001. PAN-AAACA8532G VS ITO, WARD-2(2), NEW DELHI. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SH.VIPIN JAIN, CA RESPONDENT BY SH.GAURAV PUNDIR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 20.07.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 04 .08.2021 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2018-19 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-I, NEW DEL HI DATED 25.08.2020. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL:- 1) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LD. DCIT, CPC BANGALORE, HAS ERRED IN COMPUTING THE INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AT RS.23,49,370/- U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, VIDE ORDER DATED 02.07.2019, AS AGAINST RETURN FILED SHO WN INCOME AT RS.17,74,155/- BY MAKING ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCE TOT ALING RS.5,77,410/-. THAT THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCE MADE ARE INCORRECT AND AGAINST LAW AND ARE WITHOUT JURISDICTION. IT IS PRA YED THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE TO INCOME BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING RS 5 ,64,980 DISALLOWED BY THE DCIT CPC BANGALORE, U/S 43B IN RESPECT OF TDS/G ST/PF/ESI AMOUNTS OUTSTANDING ON 31103/2018, DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.1611/DEL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2018-19 PAGE | 2 COMPANY BY 7TH OF APRIL 2018. THAT THE AMOUNT HAVIN G BEEN DEPOSITED IN TIME, ADDITIONS /DISALLOWANCE MADE TO INCOME IS INC ORRECT AND IS AGAINST LAW AND REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD DCIT CPC BANGALOR E HAVE FAILED TO JUDICIOUSLY CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION/ SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE IN RESPEC T OF TDS/GST/PF/ESI AMOUNTS OUTSTANDING ON 31/03/2018, W ERE INADVERTENTLY SHOWN AGAINST SR NO. 26(I)(B)(A) OF T AX AUDIT REPORTS IN FORM 3CD, INSTEAD OF BEING SHOWN AGAINST SR. NO. 26(I) ( B)(A) OF THE SAID REPORT AND THE SAME CANNOT BE THE BASIS TO MAKE THE DISALL OWANCE. 4. THAT THE LD. DCIT CPC BANGALORE, HAS ERRED IN DI SALLOWING RS 12,430/- OUT OF CLUB EXPENSES, INCURRED IN THE COUR SE OF AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, AND IS THEREFORE AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE. 2. THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE TH AT WHILE PROCESSING THE RETURN, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CENTRE (CPC), BANG LORE MADE ADJUSTMENT OF RS.5,64,980/- AND ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.12,430/- ON ACCOUNT OF INCONSISTENCY IN TOTAL AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 3 7 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) ON THE BASIS OF THE DETAILED REPOR T IN FORM NO.3CD. 4. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED A PPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A) WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, DISMISSED TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. NOW, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THIS T RIBUNAL. 6. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBM ISSIONS AS MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY, WRIT TEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER FOR READY-REFERENCE:- ITA NO.1611/DEL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2018-19 PAGE | 3 1. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD FILED RETURN DECLARIN G INCOME AT RS.17,74,155, WHICH THE LD CPC BANGALORE DETERMINED U/S 143(1) AT RS.23,51,566 AFTER MAKING ADJUSTMENTS TOTALING RS 5 ,77,411 (12,430 + 5,64,981) TO THE INCOME SHOWN AS PER DETAILS GIVEN AS UNDER: (I) CLUB EXPENSES ADDED TO INCOME RS 12,430 (II) DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 43B RS.5,64,981 2.1. DETAILS OF CLUB EXPENSES ARE FILED AT PG 7 OF THE WS. 2.2. DETAILS OF DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 43B ARE AS U NDER: GST PAYABLE RS. 4,13,689 DEPOSITED ON 12.04.2018 PG 8 OF WS TDS ON CONTRACTORS RS. 4,707 DEPOSITED ON 05 .04.2018 PG 9 OF WS TDS ON INTEREST RS. 877 DEPOSITED ON 05.04.2018 PG 10 OF WS TDS ON PROFESSIONAL FEES RS. 4,950 DEPOSITED ON 05.04.2018 PG 11 OF WS TDS ON SALARY RS. 17,610 DEPOSITED ON 03.04.2 018 PG 12 OF WS PF PAYABLE RS. 1,04,256 DEPOSITED ON 03.04.2018 PG 13 OF WS ESI PAYABLE RS. 18,892 DEPOSITED ON 04.04.2018 PG 14 OF WS TOTAL RS.5,64,981 CHALLANS IN EVIDENCE OF THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED ABOVE ARE FILED AT PGS 8 TO 14 OF THE WS. 3. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY EXPLAINED TO THE LD. DC B ANGALORE AND TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THERE WAS INADVERTENT ERROR IN TYPIN G THE DETAILS AGAINST WRONG COLUMN, EXPLAINED AS UNDER. (I) RS 12,430 INCURRED ON DUB EXPENSES WERE INADV ERTENTLY TYPED IN THE TAX AUDIT AGAINST 81 NO 21(6), INSTEAD OF BEING TYP ED AGAINST SL. NOS 21(4) OR 21(5) OF 3CD OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. (A) SL. NO 21{4) OF 3CD OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT READS AS UNDER: 'EXPENDITURE INCURRED AT CLUBS BEING ENTRANCE FEES AND SUBSCRIPTIONS'. PG 18 OF THE WS. (B) SL NO 21(5) OF 3CD OF THE TAX-AUDIT REPORT R EADS AS UNDER: 'EXPENDITURE INCURRED AT CLUBS BEING COST FOR DUB SERVICES AND FACILITIES USED. PG 18 OF THE WS. ITA NO.1611/DEL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2018-19 PAGE | 4 (C) SL NO 21(6) OF 3CD OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT R EADS AS UNDER: 'EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF PENALTY OR FINE FOR VIOLATI ON OF ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING. PG 18 OF THE WS [II] DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE U/S 43B WERE INADVE RTENTLY TYPED IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT AGAINST SI NO 26B(B) INSTEAD OF BEING TYPED AGAINST SL NOS 26B(A) OF 3CD OF THE TAX AUDIT REPO RT. PG 20 OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. 4. A) THE ASSESSE COMPANY HAS DEPOSITED THE ABOVE AMOUNTS TO THE CREDIT OF THE GOVT WITHIN THE STATUTORY TIME, AND IN ANY CASE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN. (31.10.2018). (B) COPIES OF CHALLANS IN EVIDENCE OF THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED WERE ATTACHED WITH THE TAX AUDIT REPORT AND WERE ALSO FI LED BEFORE THE CIT(A). (C) THE AUDITOR'S HAVE NOT RECOMMENDED ANY AMOUNT TO BE DISALLOWED. THE DISALLOWANCE MADE IS INCORRECT AND IS AGAINST L AW. (D) THE LD CPC BANGALORE OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED T HE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE COMPANY AND MADE NO ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE. THE LD CPC HAS EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION BY OVERLOOKING THE PROVIS OS TO SECTION 143(1). (E) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ENDORSING THE DIS ALLOWANCE MADE BY CPC BANGALORE ON DIFFERENT GROUNDS. 5. RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(1) OF THE I TAX ACT, 1961, APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, READ AS UNDER: 143 (1) WHERE A RETURN HAS BEEN MADE UNDER SECTION 139, OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142, SUCH RETURN SHALL BE PROCESSED IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER, NAMELY:- (A) THE TOTAL INCOME OR LOSS SHALL BE COMPUTED AF TER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS, NAMELY:- (I) ANY ARITHMETICAL ERROR IN THE RETURN; (II) AN INCORRECT CLAIM, IF SUCH INCORRECT CLAIM IS APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMATION IN THE RETURN; ITA NO.1611/DEL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2018-19 PAGE | 5 (III) DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS CLAIMED, IF RETURN OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR FOR WHICH SET OFF OF LOSS IS CLAIMED WAS FURNISHED BEYO ND THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139,' (IV) DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INDICATED IN THE A UDIT REPORT BUT NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME IN THE R ETURN; (V) DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION; OR (VI) ADDITION OF INCOME APPEARING IN FORM 26AS PROVIDED THAT NO SUCH ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE MADE UNL ESS AN INTIMATION IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE OF SUCH ADJUSTMENTS EITHER IN WRITING OR IN ELECTRONIC MODE: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM TH E ASSESSEE, IF ANY, SHALL BE CONSIDERED BEFORE MAKING ANY ADJUSTMENT, AND IN A CASE WHERE NO RESPONSE IS RECEIVED WITHIN THIRTY DAYS OF THE ISSU E OF SUCH INTIMATION, SUCH ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE MADE: [PROVIDED ALSO THAT ..(A) TO (E).. - (A) 'AN INCORRECT CLAIM APPARENT FROM ANY INFORMA TION IN THE RETURN' SHALL MEAN A CLAIM, ON THE BASIS OF AN ENTRY, IN TH E RETURN,- (I) OF AN ITEM, WHICH IS INCONSISTENT WITH ANOT HER ENTRY OF THE SAME OR SOME OTHER ITEM IN SUCH RETURN; (II) IN RESPECT 'OF WHICH THE INFORMATION REQUIR ED TO BE FURNISHED UNDER THIS ACT TO SUBSTANTIATE SUCH ENTRY HAS NOT B EEN SO FURNISHED; OR (III) IN RESPECT OF A DEDUCTION, WHERE SUCH DEDU CTION EXCEEDS SPECIFIED STATUTORY LIMIT WHICH MAY HAVE BEEN EXPRE SSED AS MONETARY AMOUNT OR PERCENTAGE OR RATIO OR FRACTION; (B) THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE RETURN . 7. POWER OF ATTORNEY IS FILED AT PGS 30 TO 31 OF T HE WS. ITA NO.1611/DEL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2018-19 PAGE | 6 6. LD. SR.DR OPPOSED THESE SUBMISSIONS AND SUPPORTE D THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITY BELOW. 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERU SED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN FROM THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT CONTAINS FACTUAL INFORMATION THAT GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. HENCE, I HEREBY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTORE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ALONGWITH THE EVIDENCES ANNEXED WITH THE PAPER BOOK TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A). LD.CIT(A) IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ISS UE AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E FORM OF CHALLANS OF PAYMENT OF GST, TDS, EPF AND ESI. THE GROUNDS OF A PPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ABOVE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED ON CONCLUSION OF VIRT UAL HEARING IN THE PRESENCE OF BOTH THE PARTIES ON 04 TH AUGUST, 2021. SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI