2022 (3) TMI 215

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-43, New Delhi ['CIT(A)'] is bad in law to the extent prejudicial to the interest of the Appellant and is liable to be quashed as: 1. The CIT(A) erred in facts and circumstances of the case and in law in not allowing the claim of the appellant for correction of amount of deduction and disallowance under section 43B of the Act which was made during the course of assessment proceedings before the Assessing officer ('AO'). 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding incorrect disallowance of Rs. 153,89,254/- and failed to consider relevant material placed on record consequently, CIT(A) also erred in allowing only Rs. 37,13,814/- as deduction towards payment of opening statutory....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... return of income on 01.12.2014 declaring total income of Rs. 13,320/-. Subsequently, the assessee filed a revised return of income declaring business income of Rs. 48,90,540/- and income from royalty/Fees for Technical Services (FTS) amounting to Rs. 26,50,44,898/-. Pertinently, in the revised return of income, the assessee itself claimed deduction of Rs. 37,13,814/- under Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), being the amount actually paid during the year. Whereas, he disallowed a sum of Rs. 1,53,89,254/- under the said provision, as the amount was not paid on or before the due date of filing of return of income. In course of assessment proceeding, the assessee having discovered that it ha....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ls) observed that the assessee had not furnished any valid evidence to demonstrate that the actual allowable deduction under Section 43B was to the tune of Rs. 1,53,89,254/-. Basis such observation, learned Commissioner (Appeals) rejected assessee's claim. 5. Before us, learned counsel for the assessee has vehemently argued that all evidences relating to the revised claim of deduction of Rs. 1,53,89,254 was not only filed in course of assessment proceeding, but was also furnished before the first appellate authority. 6. In response, learned Departmental Representative submitted, in case the evidences filed by the assessee have not been considered by the departmental authorities, the issue can be restored back to the Assessing Offi....