2023 (7) TMI 31 - HC - Income Tax

Difference in payment received as per Section 26AS and as per books - disallowance of payment of employees contribution towards PF after due date - ITAT deleted the addition - HELD THAT - Tribunal has specifically observed that AO has not verified the claim of the assessee and the total contract amount was only of Rs. 1.2 crore and the assessee has raised RA Bills of Rs. 8.32 crore during the relevant financial year. The assessee has received amount of Rs. 8.32 crores, out of which as per the books of account, as per the bank statement is of Rs. 7.7 crores only, which was received in the current year. It is also observed by the tribunal that the CIT (Appeals) has rightly deleted the addition after verification of bank account, contract amount which was received by the assessee on the basis of running bills. Thus, after considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, the tribunal has rightly dismissed the appeal preferred by the present appellant - No substantial questions of law arises for consideration.

Summary

Issues involved: Appeal challenging order under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for AY 2013-14.

The appellant revenue challenged the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Surat, regarding the assessment of total income for AY 2013-14. The respondent company's income tax return was scrutinized, leading to additions due to discrepancies in payments received and disallowance of employee PF contributions after the due date.

The CIT (Appeals) allowed the appeal filed by the respondent, deleting the addition made based on payment differences. The appellant revenue then appealed to the tribunal, which dismissed the appeal, prompting the current appeal by the appellant revenue.

The appellant argued that the respondent did not fully disclose income received from two parties, leading to a discrepancy in receipts not added to the total income. The respondent claimed double TDS deduction on the same project, which the AO contested.

The tribunal observed that the AO did not verify the respondent's claims properly, noting discrepancies in contract amounts and payments received. The CIT (Appeals) deleted the addition after verifying bank accounts and contract amounts based on running bills.

The tribunal concluded that no substantial questions of law arose from the appeal, as the facts and circumstances supported the dismissal of the appellant's appeal. Therefore, the present appeal was not entertained, and it was dismissed.