TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 581
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore passed u/s. 143(1) is bad in law and wrong on facts and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. (2) That the learned AO CPC erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 26,49,200/- on account of employees contribution to PF/ESIC Fund paid after the due date by invoking provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the AO. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the payment has been made before due date of filing return of income u/s 139 and thus allowable. The action of the authorities is therefore highly unjustified and illegal. (3) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the action o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....,88,728/- in the order u/s 154 which overrides the Intimation passed u/s 143(1) earlier. (7) That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in charging interest u/s. 234C of the Income Tax Act. The interest charged is improper. (8) That for any other ground with kind permission of your honour at the time of hearing of appeal." 2. The facts of the case, as culled out from the learned CIT(A)'s order are as follows:- 3. The assessee is a private limited company engaged in manufacture of steel products. The return of income was electronically filed on 03/10/2018, declaring total income of Rs. 38,22,84,980. The communication of proposed adjustment under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... considered the submission of the assessee and found no merit in the submission and the case laws quoted by the assessee. The intimation order passed by the Assessing Officer was confirmed. The assessee being aggrieved, is in further appeal challenging the issues as raised in their grounds of appeal. 5. We shall be dealing each ground raised by the assessee hereain below:- 6. In grounds no.1 to 5, the assessee has challenged the legality of addition made in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Act and submitted that the intimation passed under section 143(1) is bad in law and the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the same. 7. Before us, the learned Authorised Representative vehemently contended that the payments have been made bef....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT, [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC). 9. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments made by the rival parties and perused the material available on record. In ground no.6, the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A) in not considering rectification order dated 04/02/2020, passed under section 154 by which the addition amount was restricted to Rs. 9,88,728. We find that in the intimation order dated 01/10/2019, passed under section 143(1) of the Act, an addition of Rs. 26,49,199, was made by the DCIT, Central Processing Centre, Bangalore, under section 36(1)(va), details of which are mentioned in Annexure-Part A-OI-6k. The assessee found mistakes in the Tax Au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion to the extent of Rs. 9,88,728, is confirmed in view of the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra) 12. In ground no.7, the assessee challenged the interest charged under section 234C of the Income Tax Act. 13. According to the learned A.R., the interest under section 234C was charged on the income assessed in the intimation under section 143(1) and also in the rectification order u/s 154. The income tax charged on the assessed income was considered while determining the levy of interest under section 234C of the Act. The learned A.R. vehemently contended that the interest under section 234C ought to have been charged on the basis of tax determined on returned income. 14. We have given our thoughtful....