TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the aforesaid adjustments.Addition by way of adjustment and intimation u/s. 143(1) of Income Tax Act, on the basis of retrospective amendment to Income Tax Act is beyond the scope of Section 143(1) of Income Tax Act. In the present appeal before us, addition of aforesaid amount of Rs. 8,28,211/- has been made by way of adjustments and intimation u/s. 143(1) of Income Tax Act, on a debatable and controversial issue, and Ld. CIT(A) did err in law, in not deleting this addition. Additions by way of adjustment and intimation u/s. 143 were beyond the scope of Section 143(1) of Income Tax Act; and further, that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in confirming the aforesaid addition on a debatable and controversial issue. - ITA No. 1292/Del/2021 - - - Dated:- 24-5-2022 - SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Manoj Kumar, CA For the Respondents : Ramdhan Meena, Sr. DR ORDER Per Anadee Nath Misshra, AM (A). This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [Ld. CIT(A) , for short], dated 13.08.2021 fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ws governing ESI and Provident Fund. However, payments were deposited by the assessee well before due date of filing of return of income under Section 139(1) of Income Tax Act. The aforesaid additions totaling Rs. 8,28,211/- were made by way of adjustments u/s. 143(1) of Income Tax Act; vide intimation dated 12.05.2020. The assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A), which was disposed of by the Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned appellate order dated 13.08.2021; wherein the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the aforesaid additions amounting to Rs. 8,28,211/-. In coming to this conclusion, the Ld. CIT(A) considered amendment to section 43B of Income Tax Act (by insertion of Explanation-5) and Finance Act, 2021. (C). Aggrieved, the assessee has filed this present appeal in Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ( ITAT for short) against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 13.08.2021 of the Ld. CIT(A). Vide order sheet noting dated 08.04.2022, Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi ordered Early Hearing of this appeal; accepting the assessee's application for grant of Early Hearing. At the time of hearing before us, the Ld. Authorized Representative ( AR for short) for the assessee submitted that the Ld. C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1); Mahadev Cold Storage vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer [2021] 190 LTD. 273 for Assessment Year 2018-19 and 2019-20 in ITA Nos. 41 42/Agr/2021 (order date 14.06.2021); Nikhil Mohine vs. DCIT [2022] 93 ITR (Trib.) 658 (Jabalpur) for Assessment Year 2018-19 (order dated 18th Nov., 2021 of SMC Bench, Jabalpur); Gopalkrishna Aswini Kumar vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax [2022] 192 LTD. 562 (Bangalore-Trib.) for Assessment Year 2019-20 (order dated 13.10.2021 in ITA No. 359/Bang./2021); Continental Restaurant and Cafe Co. vs. Income Tax Officer [2021] 91 ITR (Trib.) (S.N.) 60 (Bangalore) for Assessment Year 2019-20 (order dated 11th October, 2021 of SMC Bench of Bangalore); and TML Business Services Ltd. [2022] 93 ITR (Trib.) (S.N.) 35 (Mumbai) for Assessment Year 2017-18 (order dated 29th Dec, 2021). In the cases of Continental Restaurant and Cafe Co. vs. ITO (supra), Nikhil Mohine vs. DCIT (Supra), Shand Pipe Industry Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (supra); Digiqal Solution Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax (supra) and Gopalakrishna vs. ADIT (supra), the different Benches of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have, in fact, specifically considered the aforesaid amendm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... troversial issues, is beyond the scope of Section 143(1) of Income Tax Act. In this regard, we respectfully mention the order of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Haryana Telecom Pvt. Ltd. 14 taxman.com 122 (Delhi). Similar view was taken by Hon'ble Courts in the cases of George Williamson (Assam) Ltd. vs. CIT Anr. [2006] 286 ITR 0533 (Gauhati); Tata Yadogawa Ltd. vs. CIT [2011] 335 ITR 0053 (Jharkhand); God Granites vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes Ors. [1996] 218 ITR 0298 (Karnataka); Swamy Distributors vs. ACIT Ors. [2003] 180 CTR 0290; 139 Taxman 0310 (Karnataka), CIT vs. Eicher Goodearth Ltd. [2008] 296 ITR 0125 (Delhi); Smt. Shanta Chopra vs. ITO [2004] 271 ITR 0132 (Delhi); Kvaverner John Brown Engg. (India) (P.) Ltd. vs. ACIT, [2008] 305 ITR 0103 (Supreme Court). 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 12.05.2020. As on the aforesaid 12.05.2020, 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bed u/s. 139(1) of Income Tax Act; is not in dispute. (b) Whether the aforesaid amendments to Income Tax Act by way of Finance Act, 2021 are retrospective or prospective, is debatable and controversial. (c) Adjustments made by Revenue u/s. 143(1) of Income Tax Act, whereby aforesaid additions of Rs. 8,28,211/- were made, were unfair, unjust and bad in law. (d) Addition by way of adjustment and 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. (e) Addition by way of adjustment and intimation u/s. 143(1) of Income Tax Act, on the basis of retrospective amendment to Income Tax Act is beyond the scope of Section 143(1) of Income Tax Act. (f) In the present appeal before us, addition of aforesaid amount of Rs. 8,28,211/- has been made by way of adjustments and intimation u/s. 143(1) of Income Tax Act, on a debatable and controversial issue, and Ld. CIT(A) did err in law, in not deleting this addition. (E). In the light of the foregoing conclusions in paragraph (D. 2.1) of this order, we are of the view that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
