UNISTAR BIOTECH LIMITED,DELHI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 27(1), DELHI, DELHI

ITA 5052/DEL/2025

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 793665 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Rajasthan Fasteners (Raj HC), Iskander Altaf Lalljee (Del HC), Integrace Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: NARENDER SINGH
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No. 5052/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year : 2018-19 Unistar Biotech Ltd., E-13, Third Floor, Plot No. 3, LSC, Ghazipur, Delhi-110096 Vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-27(1), New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AABCU2467P Assessee by: Sh. Narender Singh, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 23.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 23.09.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1077779461(1) dated 25.06.2025, in proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). 2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused. 3. The assessee hereby pleads the following substantive grounds in the instant appeal: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.7,76,499 under section 40A(7) in respect of provision for gratuity, despite the fact that the said amount was not claimed as deduction and was already disallowed in the computation. 2. That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the error in classification between section 36(1)(v) and 40A(7) was purely clerical and had no bearing on the actual taxable income reported. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No. 5052/Del/2025 Unistar Biotech Ltd. 2 3. That the appellant had filed a valid rectification application along with revised computation, which could not be processed due to Jurisdictional transfer. 4. That the appellant, without prejudice, does not contest the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) in respect of employees' PF/ESI contributions. 5. That In view of decisions including Rajasthan Fasteners (Raj HC), Iskander Altaf Lalljee (Del HC), and Integrace Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Bangalore), clerical errors that do not result in tax evasion should be rectified in favour of the Assessee. 6. That the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to Direct the Assessing Officer to rectify the computation under section 154.” 4. Suffice to say, it is come on record at the assessee’s sole substantive issue raised herein is that it had already included the above disallowance amount in it’s computation which has gone un-rebutted from the Revenue side. That being the case, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice to restore the assessee’s instant sole substantive ground back to the learned Assessing Officer to ensure that there is no double disallowance made in it’s hands. Necessary computation shall follow as per law. 5. This assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 23/09/2025. Sd/- (Satbeer Singh Godara) Judicial Member Dated: 23/09/2025 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR Printed from counselvise.com "