2023 (1) TMI 619

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not proper since he did not provide reasonable opportunity for submitting Revised Audit Report, as the Revised Audit Report was submitted on 09.08.2022 II. For that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not consider that the amount of Bonus mentioned in Form 3CB to the tune of Rs.11,85,326/- was by mistake. The correct figure was given in the Balance Sheet as Rs.4,15,300/- and the appellant had revised the Audit Report reflecting the said amount of Rs.4,15,300/- which was submitted on 8/8/2022 and hence disallowance of the entire amount of Rs. 11,85,326/- is not proper and cannot be maintainable in law more particularly when the Form 3CB has been revised and the appellant did not get reasonable....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ng deduction u/s 80-TTA of Rs. 5,632/- on interest from savings bank account. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who also dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 3. Apropos to ground nos. 1 & 2, learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT(Appeals) did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee and further submitted that the learned CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the amount of bonus mentioned in form no. 3CB to the tune of Rs. 11,85,326/- was by mistake. The correct figure was given in the balance-sheet at Rs. 4,15,300/- and the appellant had revised the audit report reflecting the said amo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... earned by the assessee. 8. On the contrary, learned DR opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. 9. I find that the learned CIT(Appeals) has decided by observing as under: "4.1 Ground No. 1 relates to disallowance u/s 36(1 )(ii) of the Act. Perusal of intimation order reveals that the appellant had declared income from BoP at Rs. 2,42,898/- and the CPC has assessed it at Rs. 14,28,124/- resulting into addition of Rs. 11,85,226/-. In the intimation order, a variance of Rs. 11,85,226/- has been identified in Annexure-OI at clause 6(c) on a/c of "any sum paid to an employee as bonus or commission for service rendered, where such sum was otherwise payable to him as profit or dividend[36(1)(ii)J'.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Accountant who can certify any mistake in his audit report/audited financial statement and revised his tax audit report/audited financial statement. So the proper course of action in this matter should be to ask the auditor to e-file revised tax audit report/audited financial statement and then take a proper course of action. Since the appellant neither furnished any revised tax audit report nor a certificate from concerned CA in support of his contention, the AO/CPC's action of disallowance on the basis of information available in ITR and TAR is hereby sustained. Thus, this ground of appeal is dismissed. 4.2 Ground No. 2 relates to denial of deduction of Rs. 5,632/- of saving bank interest under chapter VIA. Perusal of Income Tax ....