TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (9) TMI 748
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....see's appeal filed against the order u/s 143 (1)(a) of the act passed by The Central Processing center Bangalore are dismissed. 2. First we come to the appeal of the assessee for assessment year 2017 - 18. The assessee has raised the following grounds in ITA. No. 1860/Del/2020 for Assessment year 2017-18:- "1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of Ld. DOT, Centralized Processing Center, Bangalore ("Ld. AO") without appreciating the facts of the case and considering the written submission filed by the assessee on its income-tax portal vide reference id 8799995063 on 12.08.2020. 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstance....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... claim of the appellant, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 43,53,078/- u/s 43B of the Act without appreciating the facts of the case. 9. That in any case and in the view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making disallowance of Rs. 43,53,078/- u/s 43B of the Act and not accepting the claim of the appellant, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. 7. Disallowance of Rs. 891765/- made by CPC is deleted in 154 proceedings and therefore assessee has withdrawn grounds no 2 & 3. Other additions remain. 8. Against the intimation the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that assessee has not brought on record anything to show and therefore, he upheld the disallowances. He further held that adjustment made by the CPC are connected with the disallowances made by the auditor in tax audit report, which was submitted by the assessee are at variance with income tax return and therefore, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed. 9. We have heard the ld AR who submitted a paper book containing page 117 pages defending the cas....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e 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 number 6 and 7 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....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Similarly, for Assessment Year 2018-19 the ld CPC has disallowed a sum of Rs. 13,03,175/- u/s 43B of the Act. The statement of adjustment shows that the total amount of disallowance mentioned by the auditor is Rs. 84,42,537/- whereas the amount disallowed in the return of income is only Rs. 71,39,362/- therefore, the disallowance of Rs. 13,03,175/- is made by the CPC on furnishing of the return which was upheld by the ld CIT(A). The computation of total income is placed at page No. 94 of the paper book wherein, it is shown that assessee has disallowed a sum of Rs. 1,60,61,387/- u/s 43B and claimed allowance is paid before the due date of filing of return to the extent of Rs. 89,22,025/-. In the tax audit report at SL No. 26 the assessee has....