TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in conformity with the aforesaid judgment of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Ganapati Motors [ 2017 (4) TMI 1613 - CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT] therefore, the same by no means could have been dubbed as an incorrect claim and brought within the realm of the adjustments contemplated in clause (a) of Section 143(1) of the Act. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(Appeals) is set-aside and the addition made by the A.O of VAT payable is vacated. Appeal of assessee allowed. - ITA No. 169/RPR/2022 - - - Dated:- 14-3-2023 - Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Shyamsundar Sharma, CA For the Revenue : Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 14.07.2022, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O, CPC (Central Processing Center) under Sec. 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act ) dated 17.05.2019 for the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icating on the ground of levying excessive interest under section 234A of the Act at Rs.8,490 as against correct amount of Rs.746 as computed by the appellant in the return of income. Ground no.5 Excess levy of interest under section 234B 5.1. The learned NFAC erred in not adjudicating on the ground of levying excessive interest under section 234B of the Act at Rs.1,18,860 as against correct amount of Rs.5,222 as computed by the appellant in the return of income. Ground no.6 Erroneous levy of interest under section 234C 6.1. The learned NFAC erred in not adjudicating on the ground of erroneously levying interest under section 234C of the Act at Rs.44,002 as against Nil computed by the appellant in the return of income. 6.2 The learned NFAC ought to have appreciated that as per section 234C of the Act, interest must be computed on the tax due on returned income and not on the assessed income. General 7. Each one of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to one another. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal. 2. Succinctly stated, the assessee who is engaged in the business of trading of cigarette ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as mentioned VAT tax Liability of Rs.25,06,246/- has not been paid on or before the due date section for furnishing the return of income of the previous year under 139(1). Ergo, it is clear that the appellant has collected VAT but not paid into Government account. Ergo, on this turn over of Rs.25,06,246/-the appellant has not paid Income Tax. In other words VAT collected by the appellant but not paid into Government account forms part of cash credit and the appellant has not paid the Income Tax on the same. Therefore there is merit in the addition made of Rs.25,06,246/-in the order u/s.143(1) dated 17.05.2019 and the same is hereby CONFIRMED. Goes without saying, as and when the appellant pays Rs.25,06,246/-, deduction u/s 43B would be allowed as deduction. 4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before me. 5. I have heard the ld. authorized representatives of both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions. 6. Controversy invo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oks and that has been found to be in order. The Assessing Authority also found that VAT has been found separately accounted for in the Books of Accounts. The only ground on which the Assessing Authority refused to exclude the VAT collected by the dealer from the profit of business is on the basis that the VAT component was not paid off on or before the due date for furnishing the return in relation to the previous year under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act. The First Appellate Authority also noticed that it is an undisputed fact that the Appellant did not charge VAT to the Profit and Loss account. It was therefore noted by the First Appellate Authority that in such circumstances, the liability may still be unpaid, but it cannot be disallowed being not claimed as deduction in the Books of Accounts. 4. With the aforesaid fact situation, we are unable to hold that the Tribunal was in error in law in dismissing the revenue's appeal making a reference to the decisions referred to by it. 5. The decision of the Apex Court in Chowringhee Sales Bureau (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT, AIR 1973 SC 376 = (1973) 87 ITR 542, dealt with a case where the contents of the Profit and Loss account app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
