9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1320X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the audit report as not paid before the due date of furnishing of return of income. We find that the auditor had mentioned that this amount was not routed through the profit loss account and therefore, in my opinion this amount was not required to be added u/s 43B - CIT(A) has simply not allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that section 143(1)(a)(iv) provides that disallowance of expenditure can be made as indicated in the audit report as CPC while processing u/s 143(1) must have captured the data from the audit report filed by the assessee. CIT(A) has further recorded a finding that such amount was debited to the profit loss account which fact is partly correct and partly incorrect. The assessee itself in the computation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3CD para 26(B). 5. That the Learned Court erred in facts of the case by adding a sum of ₹ 7,28,139.70/- being interest on Service Tax, when the same was already added back in the return which amount to double addition. 6. That the order passed is against the merit, circumstances and legal aspects of the case. 2. Learned counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that assessee is engaged in the business of civil contracts and is regularly maintaining books of account and the assessee along with the return of income for the relevant year also uploaded tax audit report. It was submitted that the auditor had reported certain disallowances u/s 43B of the Act in the audit report and in this respect my attention was i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e CPC and CPC should have captured the entire contents of audit report along with the entire contents of computation of income. It was submitted that if the audit report and computation of income is considered together, it is observed that assessee itself had added back to its income the two items of interest on service tax and EPF and as regards service tax, it was not required to be added back as it was not routed through profit loss account and this fact is also mentioned in the audit report which was available with the CPC. Therefore, there existed a mistake apparent from record which needed to be rectified by CPC and if not by CPC, the learned CIT(A) should have allowed the appeal of the assessee which he has not done and therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wable u/s 43B of the Act. The auditor has mentioned the complete facts regarding the fact of not having paid these amounts along with the fact as to whether the entries were passed through profit loss account or not. The CPC though allowed opportunity to the assessee for proposed adjustment to which the assessee did not reply and therefore, the CPC did the adjustment and made the addition in complete contrast to the facts available. The assessee therefore, filed application u/s 154 of the Act for correcting the mistake which it claimed to be mistake apparent from record and which the CPC and learned CIT(A) have held not to be mistake apparent from record. However, I find that since for two amounts the assessee itself had added back such e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
