TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 762
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Act') dated 26.05.2020 for the assessment year 2019-20. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: "1. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in making disallowance by way of adjustment of Rs. 80,289/- u/s 43B made by AO CPC in intimation u/s 143(1) for non- payment of GST which was erroneously mentioned by the auditor in form 3CD Report in Column No. 26(i)(B)(a) in as against column just to above column, as the same was paid on 26.06.2019 & 20.09.2019. Prayed that the provisions of Sec - 43B are not applicable and disallowance of Rs. 80,289/-be deleted. 2. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of Inco....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wance u/s. 43B of the Act lies in a narrow compass, i.e. despite the reporting by the auditor in his audit report filed u/s. 44AB of the Act that GST payable of Rs. 80,289/- was not paid on or before the "due date" of furnishing return of income prescribed u/s. 139(1) of the Act, the assessee had failed to make disallowance of the said amount while computing its income for the year under consideration. 8. As is discernible from the records the auditor of the assessee had in his "audit report" reported at Sr. No. 26, as under: 26. (i)(b)(a) Paid on or before the due date for furnishing the return of income of the previous year under section 139(1) Section Nature of liability ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under sub- section (1) of Section 139 of the Act, but it was due to a clerical mistake reported by the Chartered Accountant in his audit report u/s. 44AB of the Act dated 21.09.2019 that the said amount was not paid on or before the aforesaid date. Elaborating on the reasons leading to the aforesaid mistake, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the same had occasioned for the reason that the auditor had wrongly shuffled the relevant reporting at Sr. No. 26(1)(B)(a) as against those at Sr. No. 26(1)(B)(b). In sum and substance, it was the claim of the Ld. AR that the auditor instead of reporting that the GST of Rs. 80,289/- (supra) that was shown as payable in the assessee's balance sheet on 31.03.2019 was paid before the "due date" for furni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s. 43B of the Act was called for in his hands. 10. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'DR') relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 11. Having given a thoughtful consideration to the aforesaid issue, I find that it is a matter of fact borne from record that the assessee had before the due date of filing of his return of income for the year under consideration deposited an amount of GST of Rs. 80,289/- that was shown as payable in his "balance sheet" on 31.03.2019. The aforesaid factual position is substantiated on a perusal of the revised audit report of the assessee u/s. 44AB of the Act dated 25.02.2023; "affidavit filed by the assessee dated 04.03.2021 as was filed before the CIT(Appeals); and copy of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een filed by the him as an additional evidence before me being merely supportive of the aforesaid factual position merits to be admitted. 12. On the basis of the aforesaid facts, I am of the considered view that the matter in all fairness requires to be revisited by the A.O, who shall in the backdrop of the aforesaid documentary evidence filed by the assessee to fortify his claim, therein verify the authenticity of the same. In case the assessee is able to substantiate his claim as had been raised by him in his revised audit report, which was uploaded on 25.02.2023, i.e. the amount of GST of Rs. 80,289/- was deposited by him on or before the due date of furnishing of his return of income for A.Y. 2019-20, then, the disallowance made by t....