9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1383X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowance of expenditure in question. While preparing the tax audit report, the auditor is expected to report the information as per the provisions of the Act, and the tax auditor has done that, but that information ceases to be relevant because, in terms of the law laid down by Hon ble Courts, which binds all of us as much as the enacted legislation does, the said disallowance does not come into play when the payment is made well before the due date of filing the income tax return under section 139(1). Thus reporting of payment beyond this due date in the tax audit report constituted disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taking into account in the computation of total income in the return as is sine qua non for disallowance of Section 143(1)(a)(iv). We thus respectfully follow the same and vacate the addition as summarily made by the A.O, CPC u/s.143(1)(a) - Decided in favour of assessee. - Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member And Shri Arun Khodpia, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri R.B Doshi, CA. For the Revenue : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR. ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM : The present appeal filed by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Rs.3,93,165/- made by the A.O u/s.43B of the Act was upheld by the CIT(Appeals). 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us. 6. We 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 contentions. 7. At the very outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (for short AR ) for the assessee submitted that as per instructions he seeks not to press ground of appeal No.1. Accordingly, the Ground of appeal No.1 raised by the assessee is dismissed as not pressed. 8. Apropos the disallowance of the assessee s claim for deduction u/s.36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act of the delayed deposit of employee s share of contributions towards ESI/PF of Rs.24,03,630/-, it was averred by the Ld. AR that as on the date of issuance of intimation u/s.143(1) of the Act dated 08.01.2020 there were divergent views as regards the said issue, i.e. as to whether the deposit of the employee s share of contribution towards labo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot the delayed deposit of the employee s share of contributions towards ESI EPF by the assessee-employer, could have summarily been held by the A.O, as the assessee s income under Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act while processing his return of income u/s.143(1) of the Act,.? 8. As is discernable from the records, it transpires that the assessee s chartered accountant in his audit report filed in Form 3CD r.w.r 6G(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, had at Sr.No.20(b) of the said report furnished details of the delayed deposits by the assessee-employer of the employees share of contributions towards ESI EPF, which reads as under: Ostensibly, as the aforementioned amounts received by the assessee-employer as employees share of contribution towards ESI EPF were deposited by him beyond the stipulated time period prescribed under the said relevant Acts, therefore, the A.O while processing his return of income u/s.143(1) of the Act, had held the same as the income of the assessee u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act. 9. It is the claim of the Ld. A.R that the aforementioned addition could not have been made by the A.O in the garb of a prima facie adjus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filing of its return of income under sub section (1) of Section 139 of the Act were saved by the provisions of Section 43B of the Act, therefore, the said delayed deposits could not have been summarily held by the A.O as the income of the assessee u/s.143(1) of the Act. Ld. A.R in support of his aforesaid contention had relied on the orders of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Kalpesh Synthetics (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (2022) 137 taxmann.com 475 (Mumbai) and that of P.R Packaging Service Vs. ACIT (2023) 148 taxmann.com 153 (Mumbai). It was averred by the Ld. AR, that the addition of the delayed deposit of employee s share of contribution of Rs. 19,91,318/- made u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act by the A.O, vide his intimation issued u/s.143(1) of the Act could not be sustained and was liable to be vacated. 10. Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short DR ) relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the Ld. DR that as the assessee s auditor had categorically qualified his audit report and furnished details of the delayed deposit of employees share of contributions towards ESI and EPF as referred in Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, therefore, no infirmity di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, was a highly debatable; AND (ii). that the assessee s chartered account had only furnished the details of such delayed deposits in column 20(b) of his audit report in Form 3CD and had not offered the same as disallowance; I am of the considered view, that there could have been no justification for the A.O at the time of processing the return of income of the assessee u/s.143(1) of the Act on 21.02.2020 to have summarily held such delayed deposit of the employees share of contributions towards labour welfare funds i.e ESI EPF by the assessee-employer, as the income of the assessee. My said view is supported by the judgment of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Khatau Junkar Ltd. vs. K.S Pathania (1992) 196 ITR 157 (Bom). It was observed by the Hon ble High Court that where a claim has been made which requires further inquiry, it cannot be disallowed without hearing the parties and/or giving the party an opportunity to submit proof of its claim. It was further observed that in absence of Sec. 143(1)(a) being read in the above manner, i.e debatable issues cannot be adjusted by way of intimation under section 143(1)(a), would lead to arbitrary and unreasonable inti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in computing the total income in the return; (v) disallowance of deduction claimed under sections 10AA, 80-IA, 80-IAB, 80-IB, 80-IC, 80-ID or section 80-IE, if the return is furnished beyond the due date specified under sub-section (1) of section 139; or (vi) addition of income appearing in Form 26AS or Form 16A or Form 16 which has not been included in computing the total income in the return . So far as the first point is concerned, it must be noted that the expression incorrect claim apparent from any information in the return , for the purpose of Section 143(1)(a), is further defined, under Explanation to Section 143(1), and it means that a claim, on the basis of an entry, in the return, (i) of an item, which is inconsistent with another entry of the same or some other item in such return; (ii) in respect of which the information required to be furnished under this Act to substantiate such entry has not been so furnished; or (iii) in respect of a deduction, where such deduction exceeds specified statutory limit which may have been expressed as monetary amount or percentage or ratio or fraction. On the second point, it is useful to bear in mind the fact that the scheme of Sect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o Section 143(1), is indeed permissible. It is, however, important to take note of the fact that unlike the old scheme of prima facie adjustments under section 143(1)(a), the scheme of present section 143(1) does not involve a unilateral exercise. The very fact that an opportunity of the assessee being provided with an intimation of such adjustments [as proposed under section 143(1)], in writing or by electronic mode, and the response received from the assessee, if any to be considered before making any adjustment makes the process of making adjustments under section 143(1), under the present legal position, an interactive and cerebral process. When an assessee raises objections to proposed adjustments under section 143(1), the Assessing Officer CPC has to dispose of such objections before proceeding further in the matter- one way or the other, and such disposal of objections is a quasijudicial function. Clearly, the Assessing Officer CPC has the discretion to go ahead with the proposed adjustment or to drop the same. The call that the Assessing Officer CPC has to take on such objections has to be essentially a judicious call, appropriate to facts and circumstances and in a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial decision making is in the reasoning for coming to the decision taken by the quasi-judicial officer. While on this aspect of the matter, we may usefully refer to the observations made by the Hon ble Supreme Court, in the case of Union Public Service Commission v. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and Ors., [2021] 4 SCC 516. While these observations are in the context of the judicial officers, these observations will be equally applicable to the decisions by the quasi-judicial officers like us as indeed the Assessing Officer CPC. In the inimitable words of Hon ble Justice Chandrachud, Hon ble Supreme Court has made the following observations: .. Reasons constitute the soul of a judicial decision. Without them, one is left with a shell. The shell provides neither solace nor satisfaction to the litigant. We are constrained to make these observations since what we have encountered in this case is no longer an isolated aberration. This has become a recurring phenomenon. How judges communicate in their judgments is a defining characteristic of the judicial process. While it is important to keep an eye on the statistics on disposal, there is a higher value involved. The quality of justic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aken an accepted position by the auditee- even when the auditor is appointed by the auditee himself. These are mere opinions and at best these opinions flag the issues which are required to be considered by the stakeholders. On such fine point of law, as the nuances about the manner in which Hon ble Courts have interpreted the legal provisions of the Income Tax Act in one way or the other, these audit reports are inherently even less relevant- more so when the related audit report requires reporting of a factual position rather than express an opinion about legal implication of that position. In the light of this ground reality, an auditee being presumed to have accepted, and concurred with, the audit observations, just because the appointment of auditor is done by the assessee himself, is too unrealistic and incompatible with the very conceptual foundation of independence of an auditor. On the one hand, the position of the auditor is treated so subservient to the assessee that the views expressed by the auditor are treated as a reflection of the stand of the assessee, and, on the other hand, the views of the auditor are treated as so sacrosanct that these views, by themselves, are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nomalous to suggest that a Tribunal over which the High Court has superintendence can ignore the law declared by that Court and start proceedings in direct violation of it. If a Tribunal can do so, all the subordinate Courts can equally do so, for there is no specific provision, just like in the case of the Supreme Court, making the law declared by the High Court binding on subordinate courts. It is implicit in the power of supervision conferred on a superior Tribunal that all the Tribunals subject to its supervision should conform to the law laid down by it. Such obedience would also be conducive to their smooth working: otherwise, there would be confusion in the administration of law and respect for law would irretrievably suffer 8. When the law enacted by the legislature has been construed in a particular manner by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court, it cannot be open to anyone in the jurisdiction of that Hon ble High Court to read it in any other manner than as read by the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court. The views expressed by the tax auditor, in such a situation, cannot be reason enough to disregard the binding views of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court. To that e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to in Section 36(1)(va) and the fact that the expression due date has been defined under Explanation (now Explanation 1) to Section 36(1)(va) provides that For the purposes of this clause, due date means the date by which the assessee is required as an employer to credit an employee's contribution to the employee's account in the relevant fund under any Act, rule, order or notification issued thereunder or under any standing order, award, contract of service or otherwise , one cannot find fault in what has been reported in the tax audit report. It is not even an expression of opinion about the allowability of deduction or otherwise; it is just a factual report about the fact of payments and the fact of the due date as per the Explanation to Section 36(1)(va). This due date, however, has not been found to be decisive in the light of the law laid down by Hon'ble Courts above, and it cannot, therefore, be said that the reporting of payment beyond this due date in the tax audit report constituted disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report but not taking into account in the computation of total income in the return as is sine qua non for disallowance of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind that a similar view had been taken by the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of P.R Packaging Service Vs. ACIT (supra). In the aforesaid case, the Tribunal after drawing support from its earlier order in the case of Kalpesh Synthetics (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra), had, further observed, that as in the subsequent judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (supra) assessment was framed u/s.143(3) of the Act and not u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act, therefore, the same would not assist the case of the department before them, wherein the assessee had assailed the validity of the addition of the delayed deposit of the employee s share of contributions towards labour welfare funds, i.e. ESI EPF that were made by the A.O u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act. Further, I find that similar view had been taken by the ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Paris Elysees India Private Limited Vs. DCIT, ITA No.357/JPR/2022 dated 20.02.2023; and ITAT, Delhi in the case of M/s. 360 Realtors LLP Vs. ADIT, CPC in ITA No.303/Del/2022 and Garg Heart Centre Nursing Home Private Limited, ITA No.1700/Del/2022. 15. On the basis of my aforesaid observations, I am of the considered view that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
