Shri Prakash Jivraj Rathod, Rajkot V. The DCIT (CPC), Bangalore, Bangalore

ITA 293/RJT/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4310 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2024
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2022
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH KUMAR PANDEY
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT] Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member And Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Shri Prakash Jivraj Rathod, Rajkot PAN: AAPFP6903L (Appellant) Vs The DCIT(CPC), Bangalore (Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 09-01-2024 Date of pro nouncement : 12-01-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed against the order dated 28-09- 2022 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2018-19. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- ITA No. 293/Rjt/2022 Assessment Year 2018-19 I.T.A No. 293/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No Shri Prakash Jivraj Rathod vs. DCIT (CPC) 2 “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 23,65,878/-. The addition needs deletion. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 23,65,878/- made without cogent reasons. The addition needs deletion. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 23,65,878/- made without giving notice in accordance with law and thereby violating principles of natural justice. The addition needs deletion. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 23,65,878/- made without considering past and subsequent years records. The addition needs deletion. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 23,65,878/- based on presumption and cermises. The addition needs deletion. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 23,65,878/- made without considering audit report containing all details. The addition needs deletion. 7. Taking into consideration the legal, statutory, factual and administrative aspects, addition of Rs. 23,65,878/- ought not to have been made. The same needs deletion. 8. Without prejudice, the intimation made is bad in law and deserves annulment. 9. Without prejudice, no adequate, sufficient and reasonable opportunity has been provided. The intimation needs annulment. 10. Without prejudice, the determination is framed beyond statutory time limit. The intimation needs annulment. 11. The appellant craves leave to add / alter / amend and / or substitute any or all ground of appeal before the actual hearing takes place. Total Tax Effect 8,00,174” I.T.A No. 293/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No Shri Prakash Jivraj Rathod vs. DCIT (CPC) 3 3. The assessee filed return of income declaring total income at Rs. 4,61,196/- and calculated the tax liability of Rs. 1,42,500/-. The Assessing Officer/CPC processed the same and determined income of Rs. 28,27,074/- and calculated tax liability of Rs. 8,73,565/-. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite giving notices which were duly served upon by the registry. There was a written submission filed by the A.R. of the assessee through D.R. Adhiya which is as follows:- “1. The Ld CPC has disallowed Rs 2365878 invoking provision of sec 36(1)(va) treating the same as not paid within due time. Provision of sec 143(1) however dose not empowered the CPC to make such disallowance. The power to disallowance the same are only vested with wef 01/04/21 where as the Ld. CPC has made disallowance on 03/09/2019. Thus the disallowance made is without statutory power. The same may kindly be deleted. 2. Humble reliance is place in the case of Sanjivkumar 2022 Taxpub(DT) 5352 (Bom-HC) where the Hon Bom-HC has relied on the decision of Hon Delhi High Court in the case of Ajay Gupta 297 ITR 125. Both the Hon High Court has applied the retio as Sendvik Asia limited 280 ITR 643. Gist of this is submitted here with as published in the magazine THE TAX REFERENCER, Vol 189 no 04 dated 15/02/2023 page no A526/A527 (copy Encl). 3. Since meritious grounds are under active preparation because of certain important details which goes to the roots of the matter are under active collection. Hearing may therefore kindly be adjourned only for 10-15 days as a matter of grace and oblige, If required. I.T.A No. 293/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No Shri Prakash Jivraj Rathod vs. DCIT (CPC) 4 4. On legal grounds the appeal may kindly be allowed has prayed above.” We are taking up the said written submission as well as the submissions made by the assessee before the CIT(A) and proceeding the appeal for hearing. 6. The ld. D.R. relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and the assessment u/s. 143(1). The ld. D.R. further submitted that as per the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT order dated 12-10-2022, Civil Appeal No. 2833 of 2016, the belated payment of provident fund and ESI was rightly disallowed by the Assessing Officer/CPC and was properly confirmed by the CIT(A). 7. We have heard ld. D.R. and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee has made statement before the CIT(A) that the assessee’s tax payable that of Rs. 9,42,685/- in respect of refund of Rs. 4,43,630/-, but the from the cognizance, it appears that the assessee has paid late deposit of provident fund/ESI as per the audit report and therefore the disallowance of Rs. 23,65,878/- has been made by the Assessing Officer/CPC. In the light of the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Checkmate India Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the said disallowance was rightly made. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. I.T.A No. 293/Rjt/2022 A.Y. 2018-19 Page No Shri Prakash Jivraj Rathod vs. DCIT (CPC) 5 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12-01-2024 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 12/01/2024 आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order, Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot