BP INTERNATIONAL, SALEM V. ADIT,CPC, B'LORE

ITA 73/CHNY/2023

AI Insights

The case involves B P International, which appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the assessment year 2019-20. The primary contention was the addition of ₹27,40,777 under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was disallowed by the CPC based on the tax audit report. The assessee's appeal was initially dismissed due to non-compliance with procedural requirements, and subsequent appeals to the Tribunal also failed to overturn the decision. The Tribunal found that the assessee had not provided sufficient evidence or compliance to substantiate their claims against the additions made by the CPC.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135102 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2019-2020
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2023
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 154; 143(1); 250

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ Ɋायपीठ, चेɄई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI ŵी वी दुगाŊ राव, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं डॉ. मनीष बोराड, लेखा सद˟ के समƗ BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.73/Chny/2023 िनधाŊरण वषŊ/Assessment Year: 2019-20 B P International, No. 82, SIDCO Industrial Park, Karuppur Village, Omalur Taluk, Salem 636 011. [PAN:AAJFB0694A] Vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru. (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) (ŮȑथŎ/Respondent) अपीलाथŎ की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri P. Uttamchand Jain, C.A. ŮȑथŎ की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 25.04.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 27.04.2023 आदेश /O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 25.08.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2019-20. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 91 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for condonation of delay in support of an affidavit, medical certificate as well I.T.A. No. 73/Chny/23 2 as death certificate of the assessee’s partner’s grandfather. By referring to the above details, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that there is reasonable cause and the delay in filing the appeal is neither wilful nor wanton and prayed for condonation of delay and to admit the appeal for adjudication. Against the above submissions, the ld. DR has not raised any serious objection. In view of the above submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, we condone the delay of 91 days in filing the appeal and admit the appeal for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised following grounds: 1. For that the order of the learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case and in any case is opposed to the principles of equity, natural justice and fair play. 2. For that the order of CPC has erred in making additions based on information provided in Tax Audit Report under the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. For that the Assessing Officer has erred in making addition under section 36(1)(va) while processing the return u/s. 143(1)((a) under the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. For that the order of Assessing Officer has erred in confirming the addition u/s 154 without providing an opportunity of being heard under the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. For that the Learned Principle Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in confirming the order of the Assessing Officer without I.T.A. No. 73/Chny/23 3 providing for an opportunity of being heard under the facts and circumstances of the case. PRAYER For these grounds and such other grounds that may be urged before or during the hearing of the appeal it is most humbly prayed that the Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal may be pleased to a. Direct the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made in respect of unexplained money to the tune of ₹2740777/- under the head “Profit and Gains from Business”. b. Pass such other orders as the Honourable Appellate Tribunal may deem fit. 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income for the assessment year 2019-20 on 31.08.2019 admitting an income of ₹.20,53,250/-. While processing the return under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short], the CPC has disallowed an amount of ₹.27,40,777/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act based on the audit report filed by the assessee. The assessee filed an application under section 154 of the Act and the same was rejected by the Assessing Officer. Against the order under section 154 of the Act dated 25.06.2020, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by observing as under: “3. Notice u/s 250 dated 17.08.2021 of the I.T. Act, 1961 was issued to the appellant fixing the case for uploading submission along with necessary documents in support of grounds of appeal on 01.09.2021. However, the appellant did not comply to the said notice. The case was I.T.A. No. 73/Chny/23 4 refixed on 10.11.2021 vide letter/notice dated 27.10.2021. On 09.11.2021, the appellant has filed a petition seeking adjournment of the case and considering the petition the case was refixed on 25.11.2021 vide letter/notice dated 10.11.2021, but there was no compliance. The case was again refixed on 26.05.2022 vide letter/notice dated 19.05.2022 and in the final notice, it was also mentioned that in event of failure to submit the details within the stipulated time as mentioned in the notice, the appeal may be decided on the materials as available on record without providing any further opportunity of being heard. However, there was no compliance. As the appellant is very non-compliant, the decision of the case is being given on the merit of the case. 4. Observations, Findings and Decisions 4.1 I have carefully considered the order u/s 154 dated 25.06.2020 passed by the CPC as well as the grounds of appeal and statement of facts submitted by the appellant. In the order u/s 154, it is noted that CPC has disallowed Rs.27,40,777/u/s 36(1)(va) of the 1.T. Act, 1961. During the course of appellate proceeding, the appellant has not provided any submission mentioning the date of deposit of Rs.27,40,777/- in the Government account regarding employee’s contribution to PF & ESI though it has been provided several opportunities by issuing notice/letters dated 17.08.2021, 27.10.2021, 10.11.2021 and 19.05.2022 to establish its grounds taken in the grounds of appeal. Thus it is not possible to verify whether the sum disallowed u/s 36(1)(va) was wholly deposited to the respective funds before the due date of filing ITR. Repeated non-compliances to the notice/letters lead to the presumption that the appellant has nothing more to submit in support of grounds of appeal and has no objection at present to the order appealed against. 4.2 Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, grounds taken by the appellant in grounds of appeal stand dismissed and the order u/s 154 dated 25.06.2020 passed by the CPC is upheld accordingly. 5. In the final result, appeal filed by the appellant is treated as dismissed.” 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that I.T.A. No. 73/Chny/23 5 there is a defect in the tax audit report and therefore, rectification has to be done as per section 154 of the Act, which was not done by the Assessing Officer or by the ld. CIT(A). 6. On the other hand, the ld. DR has submitted that as per the audit report filed by the assessee only, the CPC has processed the return. Therefore, there is no rectification under section 154 of the Act lies on the order passed by the CPC. 7. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. So far as first arguments of the assessee with regard to exparte order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is concerned, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has given as many as opportunities and the assessee himself chosen not to upload its submissions along with necessary document in support of grounds of appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we cannot find fault on the appellate order passed by the ld. CIT(A). 8. So far as merits of the case are concerned, the CPC processed the return filed by the assessee under section 143(1) of the Act as per the audit report filed by the assessee. Therefore, there is no mistake in the order passed by the CPC under section 143(1) of the Act. Hence, it I.T.A. No. 73/Chny/23 6 cannot be rectified under section 154 of the Act. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. We find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Thus, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 27 th April, 2023 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 27.04.2023 Vm/- आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथŎ/Appellant, 2.ŮȑथŎ/ Respondent, 3. आयकर आयुƅ/CIT, 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध/DR & 5. गाडŊ फाईल/GF.