EQUINOX LABS PRIVATE LIMITED, Mumbai V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), DELHI

ITA 2340/MUM/2022

AI Insights

Equinox Labs Pvt. Ltd. appealed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which arose from an order under section 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore. The primary issues in the appeal included the disallowance of PF contributions and TDS credits. The Tribunal dismissed some grounds as infructuous but restored the matter regarding the TDS credit to the Assessing Officer for further verification and appropriate action.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123461 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 13-11-2022
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; TDS; FORM 26AS
• Section: 154; 43

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 2340/MUM/2022 Assessment Year: 2020-21 Equinox Labs Pvt. Ltd, 224, Plot-3/3A, Unique Indu Strial Estate, Swatantra Veer Sawarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai-400025. Vs. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Room No. 245-A, North Block, New Delhi-110 001. PAN No. AAECE 7062 P Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Kishor Chaudhari, AR Revenue by : Mr. Ashish Heliwal, DR Date of Hearing : 14/11/2022 Date of pronouncement : 29/12/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 02.08.2022 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)] for assessment year 2020-21, arising from the order u/s 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) passed by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: 1. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in disallowing PF contribution of the same was deposited before due date u/s 139. 2. 2. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has failed to appreciate the provisions of section 43 B(b). 3. 3. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in ignoring the Supreme Court decision. 4. 4. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in not giving TDS credit of Rs. 47,011/ 5. 5. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has failed to appreciate the 6. 6. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in passing an order without giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. 7. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in ignoring the case law on both the issu 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the order u/s 154 passed by the CPC on 17.03.2022 disallowance u/s 30(1)(va) of ₹4,06,432/- and disallowance of TDS credit of passed by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in disallowing PF contribution of Rs. 4,06,432/ the same was deposited before due date u/s 139. 2. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has failed to appreciate the provisions of section 43 B(b). 3. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in ignoring the Supreme Court decision. 4. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in not giving TDS credit of Rs. 47,011/-. 5. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has failed to appreciate the provisions of Rule 37BA(3A). 6. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in passing an order without giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 7. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in ignoring the case law on both the issues involved. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the order u/s 154 passed by the CPC on 17.03.2022 disallowance u/s 30(1)(va) of and disallowance of TDS credit of ₹47,011/ Equinox Labs Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2340/M/2022 2 passed by the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bangalore. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in Rs. 4,06,432/- although the same was deposited before due date u/s 139. 2. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has failed to appreciate the provisions of section 43 B(b). 3. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in 4. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in 5. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has failed to provisions of Rule 37BA(3A). 6. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in passing an order without giving an opportunity of being 7. The Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC has erred in es involved. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that in the order u/s 154 passed by the CPC on 17.03.2022 disallowance u/s 30(1)(va) of 47,011/- was made. 3. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the ESI / PF contribution paid beyond the stipulated date of 4,06,432/-. However, the issue of TDS credit was not decided. 4. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue dispute and perused the relevant material on record. 4.1 Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee did not press grounds related to delayed deposit of ESI/PF contribution of ₹4,06,432/-. Accordingly, the ground No. 2 and 3 appeal of the assessee are dismissed as infructuous. 5. Further, the ground Nos. 1, therefore same were also dismissed as infructuous. 6. In remaining grounds 4 to 6, the assessee has raised issue of TDS credit of ₹28,810/ reflected in Form No. 26AS. The relevant as reproduced in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as under: 1. The Ld. AO has disallowed TDS credit of the ground that it is not reflecting in 26AS of F.Y. 2019 2020. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance of ESI / PF contribution paid beyond the stipulated date of . However, the issue of TDS credit was not decided. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue dispute and perused the relevant material on record. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee did not press related to delayed deposit of ESI/PF contribution of . Accordingly, the ground No. 2 and 3 appeal of the dismissed as infructuous. Further, the ground Nos. 1, 7 & 8 are general in nature and therefore same were also dismissed as infructuous. In remaining grounds 4 to 6, the assessee has raised issue of 28,810/- not granted by the CPC, reflected in Form No. 26AS. The relevant submission s reproduced in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as under: The Ld. AO has disallowed TDS credit of the ground that it is not reflecting in 26AS of F.Y. 2019 Equinox Labs Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2340/M/2022 3 disallowance of ESI / PF contribution paid beyond the stipulated date of ₹ . However, the issue of TDS credit was not decided. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue-in- dispute and perused the relevant material on record. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee did not press related to delayed deposit of ESI/PF contribution of . Accordingly, the ground No. 2 and 3 appeal of the general in nature and In remaining grounds 4 to 6, the assessee has raised issue of not granted by the CPC, though it was submission of the assessee s reproduced in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) as under: The Ld. AO has disallowed TDS credit of ₹47,011/- on the ground that it is not reflecting in 26AS of F.Y. 2019- 2. Out of the TDS of Form 26AS correctly. The details are as followed: Sr. No. Name of Deductor TAN of Deductor 5. Ace Designers Ltd. BLRA00221E 8. Anz Operations and Technology Pvt. Ltd. BLRA07007A 9. Anz Support Services India Pvt. Ltd. BLRA09899B 232. IDBI Bank Ltd. MUMI04922B 250. J P Morgan Services India Pvt. Ltd. MUMJ05980C 381 Tata Communications Ltd. MUMV07840A A copy of Form 26AS highlighting the attached herewith. Regarding the difference of suffered TDS although the same is not appearing in Form 26AS.” 6.1 Heard rival submission and perused record. We find that this issue of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for allowing credit of the TDS under the provisions of law and Rule No. 37 Rules, 1962. It is needless to mention that afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. Out of the TDS of ₹47,011/-, ₹28,810/- is reflected in 26AS correctly. The details are as followed: TAN of Deductor Total amount paid/credited (₹) Total tax deducted (₹) Total TDS deposited (₹) as per order u/s 154 BLRA00221E 17,500 350 350 BLRA07007A 34,200 3,430 3,420 BLRA09899B 34,200 3,430 3,420 MUMI04922B 3,36,319 33,632 36,632 MUMJ05980C 2,41,93,040 19,47,988 19,47,988 MUMV07840A 6,83,669 68,368 68,368 20,57,178 A copy of Form 26AS highlighting the said amounts is attached herewith. Regarding the difference of ₹18,200/-, the assessee has suffered TDS although the same is not appearing in Form Heard rival submission and perused the relevant material on We find that this issue is of matter of verification of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for allowing credit of the TDS ovisions of law and Rule No. 37BA of the Income Rules, 1962. It is needless to mention that the assessee shall be afforded adequate opportunity of being heard. Equinox Labs Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2340/M/2022 4 is reflected in 26AS correctly. The details are as followed: TDS claimed Difference 700 (350) 5,450 (2,030) 5,450 (2,030) 36,607 (2,975) 19,47,988 (800) 88,993 (20625) 20,85,988 (28,810) said amounts is , the assessee has suffered TDS although the same is not appearing in Form relevant material on verification at the level of the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, we restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. Assessing Officer for allowing credit of the TDS BA of the Income-tax the assessee shall be 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes. Order pronounced 1963 on 29/12/202 Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated:29/12/2022 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly for statistical purposes. Order pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, /2022. Sd/ VIKAS AWASTHY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai Equinox Labs Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2340/M/2022 5 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed partly under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai Original dictation pad is enclosed at the end of file 1. Draft dictated on: 2. Draft placed before author: 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member: 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member: 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS: 6. Order pronounced on: 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk: 8. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk: 9. Date on which file goes to AR Date Initials Original dictation pad is enclosed at the end of file Draft dictated on: 26.12.2022 before author: 26.12.2022 Draft proposed & placed before the second member: Draft discussed/approved by Second Member: Approved Draft comes to the Sr. Order pronounced on: sent to the Bench Clerk: Date on which file goes to the Date on which file goes to AR Equinox Labs Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 2340/M/2022 6 Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS JM/AM JM/AM Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS Sr. PS/PS