AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:
These assessee’s instant batch of four appeals ITA Nos. 8870 to 8873/Del/2025 arise against Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DINs & Orders No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082160168(1), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082129652(1), ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082090487(1) & ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1082090487(1) passed on 30.10.2025 & 29.10.2025, involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; hereinafter referred to as, “the Act”; respectively.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
The assessee’s first and foremost appeal ITA No. 8870/Del/2025 raises the following substantive grounds:
“1.The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, has erred on facts and in law under the circumstances of the case for not granting claim of Rs. 10,75,00,000 made through revised computation of income in assessment proceedings, on account of deduction claimed for annuitv disallowance made in previous year.
2.The Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, has erred on facts and in law under the circumstances of the case for non-adjudicating the ground of addition of Rs. 1706.50 lakh made on account of adjustment u/s 143(1).
3.The appellant craves, leave to add to or modify the above grounds of appeal at or before the hearing of the appeal”
It next transpires that the learned CIT(A) detailed discussion on the above former issue of annuity disallowance amounting to Rs. 10,75,00,000/- reads as under:
“(C)Additional deduction claimed on account of previous year disallowance of annuity : In the computation of income for the immediately preceding assessment year (AY 2017-18), the appellant had disallowed expenses amounting to Rs. 21,50,00,000/- under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act on account of non-deduction of tax at source. During the current year relevant to AY 2018-19, the requisite TDS on this amount has been duly deposited, thereby qualifying the said expenditure for allowance in the current year in accordance with the provisions of section 40(a)(ia). However, while filing the original return of income for AY 2018-19, the appellant had inadvertently claimed only Rs. 10,75,00,000/- instead of the full eligible amount of Rs. 21,50,00,000/-. The balance claim of Rs. 10,75,00,000/- (i.e., Rs. 21,50,00,000 - Rs. 10,75,00,000) has now been incorporated in the revised computation of income filed before the AO vide letter No. L/72 dated 07.02.2020. From the perusal of the computation of income for AY 2017-18, it is seen that there is no disallowance made u/s. 40(a)(ia) of the Act, and the disallowance is wrt to s. 37 and 43B of the Act. (As per pages 188 to 190 of the paper book). Hence the claim made by the appellant is factually incorrect, and thus, the same is not allowable to the appellant.”
It has come in record therefore in the learned CIT(A) lower appellate discussion that the assessee could not even prove going by its computation in the preceding assessment year 2017-18 that the corresponding issue of section 40(a)(ia) disallowance ever arose in its case. There is no evidence to rebute the same which could take us to a different conclusion. Rejected accordingly.
Learned CIT(A) detailed discussion on the latter issue of section 143(1) adjustment of Rs. 1706.50 lakhs reads as under:
“6.4 Ground No.4:-
The Ld. NeAC has erred on facts and in law by making addition of Rs.1706.50 lacs on account of adjustment u/s 143(1).
Decision:. It is seen from the assessment order that CPC while processing the ITR of appellant, had made prima facie adjustment of Rs. 1706.50 Lakh to the income of appellant.However, it is also seen that the AO has not made any addition on this account and they have simply taken total income as determined under section 143(1). The assessment order has mentioned as under on this subject:
6.5It is pertinent to point out here that addition on this issue is not being made as this addition is already been made in order under section 143(1) dated 21.12.2019. Also, assessee has preferred appeal to CIT (A) against this order. Hence, the CPC adjustment is not being disturbed with. Since the said additions have not been made in the Order appealed against before me and also since the appellant has preferred a separate appeal against the said adjustment, this ground can not be adjudicated in the present proceedings and appellant is directed to pursue the same in appropriate appellate proceedings which may be ongoing separately. This ground is thus dismissed.”
Suffice to say, it has come on record that the assessee has already preferred its statutory appeal before the CIT(A) involving section 143(1) processing dated 21.12.2019. We thus decline its instant latter ground in very terms subject to all just explanations. Its first and foremost appeal ITA No. 8870/Del/2025 fails therefore.
Now come the assessee’s latter three appeals ITA No. 8871 to 8873/Del/2025 wherein its identical sole substantive grievance is that the learned lower authorities have erred in law and on facts in disallowing its exemption claim u/s 10(46) of the Act involving varying sums. The Revenue on the other hand, places on record a copy of the tribunal’s recent order in assessee’s case itself ITA no. 7252/Del/2018 for A.Y. 2013-14 dated 23.04.2025 declining the very relief of exemption for the precise reason that it has not been notified u/s 10(46)(c) of the Act till date.
The assessee, on the other hand, claims that its writ petition seeking the very relief is pending before hon’ble jurisdictional high court. We are of the considered view that mere pendency of such a petition does not automatically stay the relevant proceedings before the tribunal in absence of any specific direction to this effect. We thus follow judicial consistency to reject the assessee’s instant latter substantive ground claiming section 10(46) exemption as well as the main appeals ITA No. 8870/Del/2025 herein.
These assesses four appeals ITA Nos. 8870 to 8873/Del/2025 are dismissed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.