Bodycare Creations Limited, Delhi V. DCIT, CPC, Karnatka

ITA 9548/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1036 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ISHTIYAQUE
• Section: 43B; 92E; 143(1); 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A” DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.9548/DEL/2019 Assessment Year 2017-18 Bodycare Creations Limited, B-02/203, Yamuna Vihar, North East Delhi, Delhi. v. DCIT, CPC, Karnataka. TAN/PAN: AADCB4442P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Ms. Kriti Bindal, CA Respondent by: Shri Ishtiyaque, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing: 11 07 2022 Date of pronouncement: 02 08 2022 O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Co mmissioner of Inco me Tax (Appeals)-II, New Delhi [‘CI T( A) ’ in short] dated 29.08.2019 arising from the intimation order dated 19.11.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 143(1) of the Inco me Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2017-18. 2. As per its grounds of appeal, the assessee has challenged the disallowance of bonus payment a mounting to Rs.30,66,187/- carried out by revenue by taking resort to Section 43B of the Act alleging non-payment of outstanding liability before due date of filing of return of inco me stipulated under Section 139(1) of the Act. I.T.A. No.9548/DEL/2019 2 3. We have heard the rival submissions on the issue. It is the case of the assessee that the return of income wa s filed on 30.11.2017 which is extended due date available to the assessee which is subjected to transfer pricing provisions under Section 92E of the Act. The assessee further contends that as per tax audit report, the outstanding payme nt was made on 18.11.2017, i.e., prior to extended due date available for filing the transfer pricing return which is 30.11.2017 under Section 139(1) of the Act. The transfer pricing report in for m no.3CEB req uired to be furnished under Section 92E of the Act dated 28.11.2017 was adverted in this regard to support the extended due date available to transfer pricing returns under Section 139(1) of the Act. 4. On appraisal of the facts and circu mstances of the case, we find that the assessee has successfully de monstrated that the return of income f iled by it has been subjected to provisions of Section 92E of the Act and consequently the due date available to the assessee is 30 t h Nove mber , 2017 relevant to Assess ment Year 2017-18 in question in terms of Section 139(1) read with clause (aa) to Explanation-2 thereto. Consequently, i mpugned outstanding bonus claims to have been paid before 30 t h Nove mber , 2017, as vouched by tax audit report, cannot be disallowed under Section 43B of the Act. The a ction of the Revenue for resorting to disallowance under Section 43B thus cannot be countenanced in law. The assessee thus succeeds in its clai m for deductibility of impugned bonus expense as claimed. The action of the CIT(A) is thus set aside and the Assessing Officer is directe d to ad mit the bonus expense claimed b y the I.T.A. No.9548/DEL/2019 3 assessee in accordance with law. 5. In the result, the a ppeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02/08/2022. Sd /- Sd /- [CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD] [PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 02/08/2022 Prabhat