Manabarrie Tea Company. , Kolkata V. ITO, WD-7(1), Kolkata. , Kolkata

ITA 616/KOL/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Manabarrie Tea Company Limited appealing against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), which had upheld certain disallowances made by the Assessing Officer under the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary issues in the appeal were the disallowance of deductions claimed under section 43B for cess on green leaf and Provident Fund contributions, and the addition of income under section 41 which was allegedly not reported in the income tax return. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's arguments regarding the disallowance of cess on green leaf and the addition of income under section 41, but upheld the disallowance related to Provident Fund contributions based on Supreme Court precedent.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 122969 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 16-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2022) taxmann.com 178 (SC)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWAPAN KUMAR BERA
• Section: 43B; 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH ‘SMC’, KOLKATA [Before Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member & Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member] I.T.A. No. 616/Kol/2023 Assessment Year : 2021-22 Manabarrie Tea Company Limited PAN: AABCM 8412 A Vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 17.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement 05.09.2023 For the Assessee Shri Akkal Dudhewala, AR For the Revenue Shri Swapan Kumar Bera, JCIT ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, JM: This appeal of the assessee for the assessment year 2021-22 is directed against the order dated 29.05.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals, NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘ld. CIT(A)’]. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “i. That the Ld CIT(A) was highly unjustified and wrong in enhancing the income by an amount of Rs. 1,05,196/- ( Rs 80,194/- plus Rs. 25,002/-) without considering the facts of the case. ii. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO was wrong and unjustified in not allowing deduction u/s 43B(a) of Rs. 80,194/- being Cess on Green Leaf paid during the year relating to preceding Assessment Year 2020-21. iii. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case. the Ld. AO was wrong and unjustified in not allowing deduction u/s 43B(b) of Rs. 25,002/- being Provident Fund and P.F. Administrative Charges paid during the year relating to preceding Assessment Year 2020-21. iv. For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. AO was wrong and unjustified in adding a sum of Rs. 7,05.329/- u/s 41 of I.T. Act, 1961 ignoring the fact that the said income was offered tax in Income Tax Return in Serial No. 14 of Part-A of P & L account. 2 ITA No. 616/Kol/2023 AY: 2021-22 Manabarrie Tea Company Limited v. That the Appellant craves leave to amend or to alter the aforesaid grounds which it considers necessary for expedience in the proper determination of the appeal before or at the hearing thereof.” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2021-22 by declaring income in ITR as Nil. However, CPC on processing of the return of income filed by the assessee and computed the income of the assessee at Rs. 8,10,530/-. On perusal of the CPC’s order, we find the entire enhancement to the total income of the assessee made solely due to enhancement to the income declared under the head “profit and gains from business or profession” whereas income declared in ITR was Rs. 1,17,29,581/-. However, CPC has computed the same at Rs. 1,25,40,106/- making following disallowances under the three heads: “(A) In the ITR filed, the assessee had claimed following expenses u/s 43B as allowable during the year, which were disallowed under section 43B in any preceding previous years (a) Any sum in the nature of tax, duty, cess or fee under any law: Rs.80,194/- (b) Any sum payable by way of contribution to any provident fund or superannuation fund or gratuity fund or any other fund for the welfare of employees : Rs. 25,002/- Total amount allowable under section 43B; Rs.1,05,196/- However CPC has not allowed the above expenses to the assessee. (B) CPC has also added a sum of Rs.7,05,329/- u/s 41 of the Act, after observing that this was an amount of profit chargeable to tax under section 41, which has not been offered for tax in the ITR filed. Total of (A)+(B) = Rs.1,05,196/- plus Rs.7,05,329/- = Rs.8,10,525/- rounded off to Rs.8,10,530/-. In tabular form, in the CPC's order, following adjustments are mentioned, as made by CPC. 3 ITA No. 616/Kol/2023 AY: 2021-22 Manabarrie Tea Company Limited Heading As reported in ITR As mentioned in Annexure-3 Proposed adjustment in total income There is inconsistency in any amount debited to profit and loss account of the previous year but disallowable under section 43B claimed in return and audit report 25,002/- 0 25,002/- There is inconsistency in any amount disallowed under section 43B in any preceding previous year but allowable during the previous year claimed in return and audit report 80,194/- 0 80,194/- There is inconsistency in the amount of profit chargeable to tax under section 41 specified in return & in audit report 0 7,05,329/- 7,05,329/- Total 8,10,525/- 3. Aggrieved by the above order, assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) where the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the above order, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising various grounds. 5. Ground no. 1 in the instant appeal does not require to be adjudicated. As ground no. 1 is connected with ground no. 2 & 3 of the instant appeal. 6. First we take up ground no. 2 of the instant appeal where the ld. AR claimed that the view taken by the AO was not justified by disallowing the claim of assessee of 4 ITA No. 616/Kol/2023 AY: 2021-22 Manabarrie Tea Company Limited Rs. 80,194/- made towards cess of green leaf during the year relevant to preceding assessment year 2020-21. In this connection, he brought to our notice from the intimation order passed u/s 143(1) by CPC at page no. 5 para 2 where the claim of the assessee was disallowed. In this context, he submitted that the alleged amount was already disallowed by the assessee its own u/s 43B of the Act while filing its return of income for the A.Y. 2020-21 and to substantiate its claim, the ld. AR produced before us the copy of the computation of income for A.Y. 2020-21 by showing us the figure of said disallowance made by the assessee. Further, in order to prove the fact, he produced before us tax audit report for the A.Y. 2020-21 whereby reflecting the figure of Rs. 80,194/- in clause 26(i)(B)(b) in serial no. 14 where the assessee its own disallowed a sum of Rs. 80,194/- u/s 40B of the Act. He further contended that since once it is disallowed by the assessee its own in such circumstances no further disallowance can be made in the assessment year 2021-22 by CPC and as such view taken by CPC is uncalled for. 7. On the other hand, ld. DR objected to the prayer made by the AR and he supported the decision rendered by the authorities below. 8. We after hearing the rival submission of the parties and perused the material available on record. We find that a sum of Rs. 80,194/- payment made towards cess on green leaf by assessee its own and disallowed the said 5 ITA No. 616/Kol/2023 AY: 2021-22 Manabarrie Tea Company Limited amount from its income for the A.Y. 2020-21 u/s 43B of the Act and assessee in order to prove the fact has submitted necessary document before us as such view taken by ld. CIT(A) by confirming the action of ld. AO is not sustainable and we direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 80,194/- made in the hands of assessee. In terms of above, ground no. 2 taken by the assessee is hereby allowed. 9. The another issue, i.e. issue no. 3 whereby a sum of Rs. 25,002/- was disallowed by the ld. CIT(A) by sustaining the view taken by CPC payment made towards PF and PF administrative charge made by assessee. In this connection, the ld. AR contended that the amount was disallowed by the assessee u/s 43B from the income of the assessee from the A.Y. 2020-21 and further not to be disallowed in the A.Y. 2021-22. However, the contention of ld. AR in this context, we are not agree with the submission made by the AR of the assessee since the issue is already covered against the assessee in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgement rendered in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2022) taxmann.com 178 (SC) dated 12.10.2022 wherein it has been held that “deduction u/s 36(1)(va) in respect of delayed deposit of amount collected towards employees’ contribution to PF cannot be claimed when it was deposited within the due date of filing of return even when read with Section 43B of the Income-tax Act,1961.” We, therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme (supra) 6 ITA No. 616/Kol/2023 AY: 2021-22 Manabarrie Tea Company Limited which squarely covered against the assessee in the instant ground no. 3 taken by the assessee and it is hereby dismissed. 10. Ground no. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 7,05,329/- made u/s 41 of the I.T. Act was added in the hands of assessee as it has not been shown as income u/s 41 which was mentioned in tax audit report. In this respect, the ld. AR submitted that the alleged income of Rs. 7,05,329/- was already offered for taxation in the return of income in sub-clause (xi) of clause no. 14 of Part A of P & L Account as liability is no longer required. He further contended that since the income has already offered for taxation by assessee, it cannot be taxed twice on the same amount. In support of his contention, he placed before us a paper book containing the income tax return along with annexure to prove the fact before us going through the same, we find that the addition made by CPC sum of Rs. 7,05,328/- in the hands of assessee is without any basis. Therefore, we direct the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 7,05,328/- in the hands of assessee. In view of the above, ground no. 4 taken by the assessee is hereby allowed. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed partly. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.09.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Girish Agrawal) (Sonjoy Sarma) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 05.09.2023 Biswajit, Sr. PS 7 ITA No. 616/Kol/2023 AY: 2021-22 Manabarrie Tea Company Limited Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Manabarrie Tea Company Limited, 28/1, Ganga Jamuna Building, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017. 2. Respondent – ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata. 3. Ld. CIT 4. Ld. CIT(A) 5. Ld. DR True Copy By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata