Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2022 (6) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (6) TMI 439 - AT - Income TaxDelayed deposit of employees' contributions towards PF & ESIC - payment beyond due dates prescribed in respective funds and paid before the due date of filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) - addition on a debatable and controversial issue - adjustments u/s. 143(1) - HELD THAT:- In this present case before us, the additions have been made by way of adjustments vide intimation u/s. 143(1) of Income Tax Act, dated 23.03.2020. As on 23.03.2020, the aforesaid amendments to Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of Income Tax Act had not been enacted; but orders of Hon'ble Delhi High Court (the jurisdictional High Court) in favour of assessee and against Revenue on this issue in aforesaid cases of CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. [2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT]; and CIT vs. P.M. Electronics Ltd. [2008 (11) TMI 3 - DELHI HIGH COURT] were available. Accordingly, the aforesaid amount could not have been added to assessee's income as on 23.03.2020 in the light of these binding precedents of the Hon'ble Delhi Court in favour of the assessee. Therefore, we are of the view that the aforesaid adjustments made by Revenue on 23.03.2020, whereby the aforesaid amount was added to assessee's income, were unfair, unjust, and bad in law. For this view, we respectfully take support from the order of Agra Bench of ITAT, in the case of Mahadev Cold Storage vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer [2021 (6) TMI 506 - ITAT AGRA] Revenue should have given due consideration to the fact that the issue was highly debatable and controversial. As already discussed earlier, adjustments u/s. 143(1) of Income Tax Act by way of intimation u/s. 143(1) of Income Tax Act, on debatable and controversial issues, is beyond the scope of section 143(1) of Income Tax Act. Revenue was clearly in error, in making the aforesaid adjustments u/s. 143(1) of Income Tax Act on 23.03.2020 on a debatable and controversial issue. We would like to make respectful mention of order of Jabalpur Bench of ITAT in the case of Nikhil Mohine [2021 (11) TMI 927 - ITAT JABALPUR], in which similar view has been taken. Further, it is also well settled that retrospective amendment cannot be invoked to make addition by way of adjustment and intimation u/s. 143(1) of Income Tax Act. This view was taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Electro Graphites Ltd. [2000 (3) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee.
|