AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (7) TMI 503
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition of PF payable amounting to Rs. 18,236/- for the month of March 2018 which is paid on 15.04.2018 in spite of the fact that same has been fully paid within due date prescribed under the respective Act and also due date of filing ITR. Proof of payment was submitted before Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT(A), ignored the submission of the assessee Ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition which is bad in law, against law of natural justice and uncalled for; disallowance made and sustained may kindly be deleted. 3. Ground 3: That on the facts and on the circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining addition made by Ld. AO amounting to Rs 12,226/- towards delay in payment of Employee's Contribution to Provident fund in spite of the fact that same has been paid before due date of filing ITR. CIT(A) ignored the submission of the assessee and has confirmed the addition which is bad in law, against law of natural justice and uncalled for; disallowance made and, sustained may kindly be deleted. 4. Ground 3: Disallowance for delay in payment of PF is not a mistake apparent from record, thus addition of same in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee on 21.01.2019. The assessee had submitted its response to the said communication on the same day i.e. on 21.01.2019, copy of the acknowledgement showing online response to the notice u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act by the assessee dated 21.01.2019 was furnished in support of this contention. The addition was consisting of two amounts i.e. one is with respect of employees contribution to the fund set up under the EPF Act for Rs. 12,226/- and secondly on account of delayed payment of EPF payable of Rs. 18,236/- and GST payable of Rs. 7,48,076/-. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the amount of Rs. 7,66,312/- was paid within the stipulated time of the relevant statutes and also before the due date of filing of return u/s. 131 of the Act, hence, the disallowance made by the AO was uncalled for and unjustified. In support of this contention, ld AR submitted the fact that the amount of Rs. 7,66,312/- was paid in time and the same was duly informed to the AO while responding to the communication for proposed adjustments u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act dated 21.01.2019, however, the response of the assessee was not considered by the AO and the addition proposed was crystalized. It was the submi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ders of the authorities below and filed his written submissions which read as under :- The assessee has challenged in ground no -3 disallowances in payment of PF is not a mistake apparent from records, thus addition of the same in rectification order us 154 r.w.s. 143(l) and sustaining the same by CITA is bad in law and may kindly be deleted."" 1. Section 44AB mandates a liability of the assessee to file his audited report certified by qualified CA in time, based on his books of account in accordance with accounting standard prescribed in the rule. The report furnished and uploaded in the ITBA is legal evidence explaining the business transaction balance sheet and other financial statement. There is no reasons to disbelieve the transaction entered in audited report. Based on the data in audited report, and entry made in matching column of ITR, found not verifiable, the CPC rightly disallowed the expenditure claimed by the assessee. 2. The genesis of the grievances of the assessee is not based on some issues required legal interpretation and cannot be said as debatable issues and is out of the scope of section 143(1) of the Act. It is omission and commissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 2018; Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section,- (a) "an incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return " shall mean a claim, on the basis of an entry, in the return,- (i) of an item, which is inconsistent with another entry of the same or some other item in such return; (ii) in respect of which the information required to be furnished under this Act to substantiate such entry has not been so furnished; or (iii) in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction; (b) the acknowledgement of the return shall be deemed to be the intimation in a case where no sum is payable by, or refundable to, the assessee under clause (c), and where no adjustment has been made under clause (a). 4. The CPC have the jurisdiction and power to process under section 143(1) of the Act all the ITR ..... : Vide Notification by CBDT, New Delhi, the 10th June, 2022 (INCOME-TAX) S.O. 2693(E).- The AO CPC Authorised undersection 120 of the Act to proce....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of Direct Taxes No.61/2022 dated the 10th June, 2022, published in Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii) vide number S.O. 2693(E) dated the 10th June, 2022 has identify the entries for processing of ITR. 3. From the circular discussed below, CBDT has facilitated through its notification to revised audited report and allowed to upload rectified audited report. That is remedies available with the assessee, instead the assessee preferred application under section 154 of the act. Unless the assessee rectify his commission or omission by filing revised audited report, the mismatch figure cannot be processed by CPC. Hence, the rejection of his 154 application was rightly done by the CPC. The assessee cannot reach to his desired destination by catching wrong bus. It was negligence of the assessee which can be corrected by the assessee him self. The simple answer to it, is corrects the entry which has been incorrectly entered due to omission by filing revised audited report or ITR. The assessee without exhausting remady available at his door wrongly stepped to filing application under section 154 of the act. The Act and ITBA has given him sufficient....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 154 is also valid. Therefore, the order passed by the CITA confirming the disallowances, as above, is sustainable. 11. We have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. First, we shall deal with the contention of the ld. DR that the CPC is empowered to process the ITR in accordance with the provisions of Section 143(1) of the Act, in mismatch in the entries in ITR with the audit report is the subject matter of disallowance. The mismatch of relevant entries informed for disallowance u/s. 143(1) of the Act. Such mismatch is curable only by filing revised audit report. The assessee instead of filing revised audit report rides on wrong bus and has applied the provisions u/s. 154 of the Act for rectification of mistakes. Hence, the order passed u/s. 143(1) of the Act is valid and rejection of application u/s. 154 of the Act is also valid, therefore, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) confirming the disallowance is sustainable. This contention of the revenue cannot be acceded to for the reason that any addition made u/s. 143(1) of the Act has to go through the process as prescribed in Section 143(1)(a) of the Act, which is extracted hereinunder for b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the present case, wherein an intimation u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act was served upon the assessee on 21st January, 2019 and the assessee has very diligently responded with the reasons specifying that since the payments which are proposed to be disallowed are made within the specified, the same cannot be subjected to any disallowance, however, the AO, who was duty bound to consider such response from assessee, before making an addition on this account, has not considered the submission of the assessee, therefore, the same should have been considered as a mistake apparent from the record. We, thus, do not find any merit in the contention raised by the revenue and are of the view that since a mistake was apparent from the record and the AO, who was mandated by the law to consider the response of the assessee, which was submitted within the prescribed time of 30 days but has not considered the same and crystallized the addition, therefore, the mistake is apparent from record and curable within the provisions of Section 154 of the Act. Department's plea that the assessee should have revised the audit report which was carrying the mismatch with figures in ITR, cannot be considered to be a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....layed payment was discussed at length but it was not observed that in the instant case, there was no delay in payments, thus, such provisions of law which are applicable in a particular situation, which is not the situation of the case in hand, cannot be applied. In such a peculiar situation, since the issue before the ld. CIT(A) wherein the submission of the assessee were taken into consideration but were not carefully read into, the ld. CIT(A) has observed that the assessee has argued that if the payments were made within the due date of filing of return, the same had to be allowed, however, the submission of the assessee that the payments were made within the due date stipulated under the respective statutes and also before filing of return, the same should have been allowed. This clearly shows that the ld. CIT(A) has not gone through the facts of the case in its entirety and, therefore, has comprehend that the payments were made beyond the due date prescribed under respective statutes, therefore are disallowable. We do not persuade to concur with the finding of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and in the interest of justice, considering the ....