2021 (9) TMI 748 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee's Appeals Allowed by ITAT: Disallowances Set Aside for Verification

M/s. Blaser Swisslube Pvt. Ltd. Versus DCIT Centralized Processing Center, Bangalore.

The appeals by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 were allowed for ... Disallowance u/s 37 - Central Processing Centre passed an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act - HELD THAT:- assessee has submitted the copy of the computation where the assessee itself has disallowed the sum of rupees one by 14,176 and the breakup of is loss on sale of assets of ₹ 78,949 and interest on tax deduction at source of ₹ 35,227. As the assessee has already disallowed the above sum its computation of total income, once again is disallowance by the Central processing unit resulted into the double addition. Hence the learned assessing officer is directed to delete the above disallowance. Therefore ground number 4 and 5 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Disallowance u/s 40 A (7) - disallowance on account of gratuity has been made by the Central processing unit - HELD THAT:- It is apparent that in the breakup of the disallowance u/s 43B assessee has already included the above sum, however correctly the assessee should have disallowed the above sum u/s 40A (7) of the act. There is a inconsistency in filing of the return of income by the assessee and therefore it is the duty of the assessee to show before the learned assessing officer the nature of the mistake and how it resulted into double disallowance. In view of this we set-aside ground of the appeal of the assessee back to the file of the learned assessing officer with a direction to the assessee to show that it has already included in the computation of total income the above disallowance. The AO may verify the same and if it is found that the same is already been disallowed by assessee, the disallowance may be deleted. Disallowance u/s 43B - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly the above sum is not been paid by the assessee before the due date of the filing of the return of income. From the computation of income it is evident that assessee has claimed deduction u/s 43B of the act where the sums have been paid on or before the due date of the filing of the return of income. The same is also disclosed in the tax audit report at serial number 26 (i) (A (a)). Therefore the above deduction has rightly been claimed by the assessee. Therefore it is apparent that there is no inconsistency in the disallowance offered by the assessee. However the set aside this issue also to the file of the learned assessing officer with a direction to the assessee to show the reconciliation of the amount disallowed u/s 43B of the act with respect to each of the items disclosed in the tax audit report. If the AO is satisfied that the disallowance offered by the assessee is correct, about disallowance deserves to be deleted. Issues:Appeal against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19.Analysis:1. Assessment Year 2017-18:- The appellant raised various grounds challenging the disallowances made by the Central Processing Center (CPC).- The CPC disallowed amounts under different sections of the Income Tax Act, including sections 36(1)(va), 37, 40A(7), and 43B.- The appellant contested these disallowances before the CIT(A), who upheld the CPC's decision.- During the proceedings, the appellant withdrew certain grounds related to adjustments made by the CPC.- The ITAT examined the grounds and found that some disallowances were already accounted for by the appellant in their computation of total income.- Consequently, the ITAT directed the assessing officer to delete the disallowances where double additions were made.- The ITAT also set aside certain disallowances for further verification by the assessing officer to reconcile inconsistencies in the filing of returns.2. Assessment Year 2018-19:- Similar to the previous year, the CPC disallowed an amount under section 43B of the Act.- The appellant claimed that the disallowance had already been considered in their computation of total income and correctly mentioned in the return.- The ITAT directed the appellant to provide clarification to the assessing officer regarding the discrepancy in the disallowance made by the CPC.- If the assessing officer verifies that the disallowance was correctly offered in the computation of total income and return, the disallowance may be deleted.In conclusion, both appeals by the assessee were allowed for statistical purposes, with directions given for the deletion of certain disallowances and further verification of discrepancies.