TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (8) TMI 532
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e adjustment of Rs. 2,00,33,478/- made u/s 43B of the Act. 2. The order of the CIT(A) is erroneous both in law and on facts. 3. Other grounds that may be argued at the time of hearing of appeal." 3. The sole grievance raised by the revenue in present appeal is that the CPC while processing the return of the assessee has disallowed a sum of Rs. 2,05,26,439/- u/s 43B of the IT Act, but the same has been deleted by the Ld. CIT(A) to the extent of Rs. 2,00,33,478/-. 4. Ld. Departmental Representative (Ld. Sr DR) submitted that since the assessee has not complied with the provision of section 43B of the Act, the impugned order of Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in deleting of adjustment made by the CPC, it was an error on the part of the Ld. CIT(A), therefore, the order of Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be set-aside and the addition so made by the CPC deserves to be upheld. 5. Per contra, Ld. Authorized Representative (in short, Ld. AR) for the assessee submitted that the issue is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-I v. M/s Ganpati Motors reported in 2017(4) TMI 1613 and thereafter in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... "12. Reverting to the facts of the case, it is admitted position on record that the appellant /assessee did not claim the amount of 62,32,262/- in his profit and loss account as an expenditure / deduction, nor the appellant claim deduction in respect of that account under Section 43B of the IT Act. In that view of the matter, the Assessing Officer, the CIT(A) and the ITAT, all three authorities have concurrently erred in holding that the appellant has claimed deduction/expenditure under Section 43B of the IT Act adding to its taxable income. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the ITAT holding that the appellant is liable to pay tax on 62,32,262/-, is liable to be and is hereby set aside. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue." Considering the above discussion and binding nature of decision of Jurisdictional High Court, the adjustment of Rs. 1,97,28,018/-is deleted. 5.2 The other disallowance in the intimation u/s 143(1) is Rs. 7,98,421/- on account of entry tax. The appellant submitted the details and stated that the amount includes Rs. 3,05,460/-for opening balance. Further amount of Rs. 4,9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in his profit and loss account as expenditure and the case is covered by the decision rendered by this Court in M/s Ganapati Motors's case (supra). 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. In order to consider the plea raised at the Bar, it would be appropriate to notice Section 43B(a) of the IT Act, which states as under: "43B. Certain deductions to be only on actual payment. -Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, a deduction otherwise allowable under this Act in respect of- (a) any sum payable by the assessee by way of tax, duty, cess or fee, by whatever name called, under any law for the time being in force, or xxx xxx xxx" 10. In this regard, decision of this Court in M/s Ganapati Motors's case (supra) would be more relevant in which the issue before the Court was, whether Section 43B of the IT Act is attracted even when the assessee does not claim any deduction on the strength of that provision and considering the said question, this Court held in paragraph 3 as u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er, while dealing with the similar issue in the case of Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-1(1), Raipur vs. Grand Motors, Raipur in ITA No. 544/RPR/2024, vide order dated 23.01.2025, the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee, wherein the relevant observations are culled out as follows: "10. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and case laws relied upon by the parties. Admittedly, the issue in present case qua the admissibility of unpaid VAT liability which was not paid on or before the due date for furnishing the return u/s 139 of the Act, if the same is not charged to P&L Account, the same cannot be disallowed being not claimed as deduction in the books of accounts. We may herein note that on this issue the revenue through its Ld. Standing Counsel had accepted that the said amount was not claimed as an expenditure in P&L Account and the case is covered by the decision rendered by Hon'ble Jurisdictional HC in the case of M/s Ganapati Motors (supra), under such admission by the revenue, the contentions raised before us are found to be bereft of any substance. Regarding reliance of the....