TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (10) TMI 306
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... INTIMATION passed/processed u/s 143(1) of 1961 Act dated 13.12.2019, which is totally invalid and unlawful/illegal on face of it. B) That Ld.CIT(A) vide impugned order passed u/s 250 dated 27.01.2025 erred in not quashing the impugned INTIMATION passed/processed u/s 143(1) of 1961 Act dated 13.12.2019, on jurisdictional ground of a) being contrary to mandate of 1961 Act and b) being totally is in violation of principle of natural justice (illustratively it is passed without issue of any valid/requisite prior show cause notice/SCN) and c) subject matter is not falling in statutory purview of sec. 143(1) and in worst case only available option was to issue notice u/s 143(2) of 1961 Act. C) That Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned orde....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sallowance invoking the provisions of section 43B, the Hon'ble High Court referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Noble & Hewitt (I) (P.) Ltd. held that since assessee did not claim the amount in his profit and loss account as his expenditure/deduction u/s 43B, the disallowance made by CPC while processing return u/s 143(1) was deleted. 3. Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below. 4. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. The CPC while processing the return disallowed VAT & GST as these amounts were not remitted before due date for filing of return of income. The action of the CPC was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The issue of whether the VAT, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essing Officer, Centralised Processing Centre (CPC) processed the return of the assessee and issued intimation under Section 143(1) of the IT Act making certain disallowances and enhancing total taxable income of the assessee at Rs. 2,61,28,820/-. The specific disallowances are made under Section 43B of the IT Act on account of nonpayment of liabilities such as VAT, Entry Tax, CST before the prescribed date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) of the IT Act. 5. Feeling aggrieved against the order of the Assessing Officer, the appellant assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority i.e. the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) under Section 246A(l)(a) of the IT Act and the CIT(A), by its order dated 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 7. Mr. Amit Chaudhari, learned Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department / Revenue, would submit that the appellant did not claim the said amount of Rs. 62,32,262/- 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 con....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....circumstances, the liability may still be unpaid, but it cannot be disallowed being not claimed as deduction in the Books of Accounts." 11. Similarly, the Delhi High Court in the matter of Commissioner of Income-tax v. Noble & Hewitt (I) (P.) Ltd. held in paragraph 6 as under: - "6. In our opinion since the assessee did not debit the amount to the Profit & Loss Account as an expenditure nor did the assessee claim any deduction in respect of the amount and considering that the assessee is following the mercantile system of accounting, the question of disallowing the deduction not claimed would not arise." 12. Reverting to the facts of the case, it is admitted position on record that the appellant / assessee did not....