TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1294
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ant ought to have filed appeal against intimation passed u/s 143(1) and not us 154 as according to him there is no cause of action against order u/s 154. With at respect, we submit that the findings given by Learned CIT Appeal for dismissing the appeal is Inconsistent with the provisions of IT Act and therefore such action needs to be reversed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law. The Dy Director of Income Tax CPC has erred in making addition of Rs. 35,50,679/-to the return income on account of contingent liabilities, when there is no such contingent liabilities and no such contingent liabilities was claimed or shown in the balance sheet and Dy. Director of Income Tax CPC has further erred in not deleting the above sa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....314,220 by making addition of Rs. 35,50,679 to the income returned by the assessee on account of contingent liability of sales tax disclosed in the financial statements in the shape of note. The assessee preferred rectification application under section 154 of the IT Act before CPC and stated that neither such expenditure was claimed in the profit and loss account nor such liability was shown in the balance sheet, and accordingly requested to delete the addition & rectify the intimation. CPC issued rectification order under section 154 of the IT act however with no change. The assessee than preferred 1st appeal before learned CIT(A)/NFAC who dismissed the same by observing as under "5.1. I have carefully considered Form 35. statement of f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... us that the order passed by learned ld.CIT(A)/NFAC is unjustified. It was submitted by ld.AR for the Assessee that the order passed under section 143(1) was as it is supplied as the order under section 154 of the Income Tax Act, and there is no difference in both the orders. It was also contended by learned AR that both the orders are appealable and learned ld.CIT(A)/NFAC should not have had dismissed the appeal merely on this technical ground. Learned AR also submitted before the bench that no notice was issued by CPC before making the above prima facie addition. It was further submitted by learned AR that the sales tax assessment for assessment year 2008-2009 was completed in the financial year 2016-17 and demand of Rs.35,50,679 was rais....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....wed the appeal filed by the assessee which was filed against order passed under section 154 of the IT act instead of against the order passed under section 143 (1) of the IT Act. Ld.AR further referred section 246A(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, which specifically provides that an appeal can be filed by the assessee against an order passed under section 154 or 155 of the Income Tax Act. Further In support of its contentions that contingent liability should not have been added by CPC, Learned AR relied on the order passed by coordinate bench of this tribunal in the case of ACIT versus Mahesh Mohan Bhai Patel (2025) 174 Taxmann.com 843 Ahmedabad, wherein under identical facts similar addition made by CPC on the basis of contingent liability was....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s again been issued as order under section 154 of the IT Act. We further find that a contingent liability of Rs. 35,50,679/- was reported in the financial statements towards disputed sales tax demand for the purposes of information only, and neither any deduction was claimed in the profit and loss account nor it was shown as a liability in the balance sheet. We find that the above demand was not accepted by the assessee and an appeal was preferred before sales tax authorities and stay order dated 23rd December, 2016 was also obtained on a payment of Rs. 80,000 which was shown as receivable from sales tax Department. We also find that the contingent liability was disclosed in the shape of note in the financial statements for the purposes of ....