AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER AMITABH SHUKLA, AM,
This appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 29.07.2025 of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)] arising out of assessment order dated 01.03.2021 passed 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 pertaining to Assessment Year 2018-19. The word ‘Act’ herein this order would mean Income Tax Act, 1961.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1)That on the facts and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order, upholding the actions of the Ld. AO in disallowing a sum of Rs. 23,93,961/- being Employees contribution towards PF/ESI not deposited before the due date of filing of return under section 139(1) of the Act on the basis of amount reported in Form 3CD.
2)That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of sum of Rs. 23,93,961/-, without appreciating the fact that the appellant has already disallowed the said amount while filing its Income Tax Return which forms part and partial of amount of Rs.57,54,385/-disallowed and reflected in Item No. 18 of Schedule -BP - "Any amount debited to profit and loss account of the previous year but disallowable under section 43B (11h of Part A-OI) and addition of the same amount again will result in double addition.
The assessee has raised additional ground, which reads as under:-
1.That the AO has erred in passing the assessment order under section143(3) without issuing any show cause notice cum draft assessment order which is in contravention of mandatory provisions E-Assessment Scheme, 2019 notified under section 143(3A) of the I.T. Act, 1961.
At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that it wishes not to press the additional ground moved during the course of present hearing. The same is therefore dismissed as not pressed.
The only controversy raised by the assessee is regarding the addition of Rs.23,93,961/- on account of PF/ESI Contribution. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the impugned amount has already been included in the overall amount of Rs.57,54,385/- which has been reflected in the item No.18 of schedule BP annexed with the Return of Income. It is the case of the assessee that the disallowance made by ld. AO tantamount to double taxation. The ld. Counsel invited our attention to page no.71 and 72 of the voluminous paper book filed by it. It was stated that perusal thereof indicates that in column no.26(i)(A)(b) and no.26(i)(B)(b), the said amount of Rs.23,93,961/- has been included.
Heard rival parties. The ld. DR relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. Upon perusal of impugned evidences in paper book, we are convinced that the appellant had indeed added back these amounts in its computation of Income and that therefore the addition by the ld. AO is a clear case of double taxation. We have further noted from the order of ld. CIT(A) that he has failed to consider this aspect of the case and has merely proceeded to dismiss the appeal of the assessee by filing judicial precedents, which are distinguished on facts. Accordingly, we set-aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and direct the ld. AO to delete the impugned addition of Rs.23,93,961/-. All the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.