TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 2178
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by ADIT(CPC), Bangalore. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal : "a. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by deleting the addition of Rs. 2,08,54,382/- by failing to exercise his powers u/s. 250(4) by making such further inquiry as he thinks fit or by directing the Assessing Officer to make such further inquiry b. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the submissions made by the assessee during appellate proceedings were in the nature of additional evidences and therefore erred in not allowing the A.O. to examine the additional evidence admitted by them as per the provi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of disclosure as per ICDS under point 13 (f) as well as in point 21 (g) under the heading 'Particulars of any liability of contingent nature' The details of the bank Guarantees issued on behalf of the company and remaining outstanding as on the last day of the previous year are as under: Bank Guarantee No. Issued to Amount 240GT02180050019 Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. Rs. 1,50,55,682.00 240GT02160910009 Andhra Pradesh Industrial Infrastructure corporation Ltd. Rs. 5,798,700.00 Total (Rs. ) Rs. 2,08,54,382.00 Your honour's kind attention is invited to the fact that a bank guarantee is always contingent in nature and in our case the total amount of Rs. 2,08,5....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Ld. CIT(A), NFAC that we fail to understand how can the learned assessing officer add back the amount of Bank Guarantees as disallowed expense to the returned income of "The Company' which has not been even claimed as expense in the first place in the return filed for A.Y. 2021-22. Since the said Bank Guarantees are not in the nature of incurred expense and not claimed as expense in the return of income, the total amount of such bank guarantees is reported in the Form 3CD only as a statutory obligation for disclosure purpose only. It will be obvious for any person of sound mind and having common sense that there cannot be any addition U/s 37 of Income Tax Act, 1961, for an amount which has not been claimed as expendi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... convinced and satisfied in arriving at a conclusion that the said addition is a mistake apparent from records. Thus, he did not find any reasons or necessity to make any further inquiry and he did not deem it a fit case for further enquiry or necessity to direct the assessing officer to make such further enquiry." Findings & Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In this case, an order u/s.143(1) of the Act, was passed on 13.11.2022. As per the order u/s.143(1), Return of Income was filed on 15.01.2022 and due date of filing Return was 15.03.2022. Thus, the Return of Income was filed within the time. The Centralised Processing Center made following adjustment u/s.143(1) which is appearing at page no.27 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The assessee's appeal is allowed." 6. Thus, ld.CIT(A) gave a finding that the amount of Rs. 2,08,54,382/- is a contingent liability and does not form part of the profit and loss account. Ld.CIT(A) gave a finding that it is a performance guarantee issued by HDFC Bank. Therefore, ld.CIT(A) held that CPC has erred and accordingly, directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition. 6.1 We have perused the copy of the Return of Income filed by assessee which is at page no.37 to 121 of the paper book. Following details have been noted : Gross Profit - 5,35,89,036/- Profit before Interest, Depreciation, Tax - 3,74,32,896/- 6.2 Thus, the difference is Rs. 1,61,56,140/-. It means, assessee has claimed Rs. 1,61,56,140....