9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (7) TMI 564X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s while computing business income u/c IV-D of the Act, shall indeed be allowed in a previous year in which such sums are actually paid irrespective of financial year in which liability towards was incurred. The proviso to section 43B eases the hardship by extending such period upto the due date of filing ITR as prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act. In nutshell any expenditure which is otherwise allowed as deduction in computing taxable income u/c IV- D is subjected to actual payment within the due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act irrespective of method of accounting employed by assessee. In the instant case, admittedly the due date of filing ITR u/s 139(1) for AY 2019-20 was 30/09/2019 which was extended further by a month to 30/10/2019. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For the Assessee : Mr MK Kulkarni JR Chandekar For the Revenue : Mr MG Jasnani ORDER PER G. D. PADMAHSHALI, AM; This appeal of appellant instituted u/s 253(1)(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short the Act ] challenges DIN order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1054132806(1) dt. 05/07/2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre [for short Ld. NFAC ] u/s 250(6) of the Act which in turn ascended out of order of intimation passed u/s 143(1) of the Act by Centralised Processing Centre, Bengaluru [for short Ld. CPC ] . 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that; 2.1 The appellant assessee is a resident partnership firm filed its return of income [for short ITR ] on 29/07/2020 u/s 139(4) of the Act declaring total income ₹1,91, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s case for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred as aforesaid and the evidence of such payment is furnished by the assessee along with such return. In this case , the appellant filed his GSTR on or after due date of IT us 139(1) of the Act. On perusal of intimation us 143(1) of the Act issued by CPC in this case seen that the appellant has disclosed his total income under the head PGBP amounting to Rs. 1,91,15,110/- only whereas the disallowance of expenditure indicated in the audit report amounting to Rs. 1,69,63,968/-but not taken into account in computing the total income in his return under the head PGBP. 4.6 Keeping in vie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case in light of settled legal position, which are forewarned to parties present. 5. It is nobody s case that belated payment of GST being statutory dues falling within clause (a) of section 43B is not subjected to disallowance. The only question we need to answer is that, whether ITR filed u/s 139(4) can be treated as filed u/s 139(1) for the purpose of section 43B of the Act? In simple terms as to whether discharge or actual payment of expenditure/liability made any time after the expiry of due date or extended due date prescribed u/s 139(1) of the Act but before filing of ITR u/s 139(4) of the Act qualifies for deduction in computing income u/c IV-D without attracting provisions of section 43B of the Act? 6. It is well settled law th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xtended due date of filing u/s 139(1) of the Act. 8. The solitary contention of the assessee is to treat return filed u/s 139(4) as filed u/s 139(1) for the purpose of section 43B of the Act attempts to give go- by to overriding provision of law so has to avail additional time over the time period statutorily allowed to it for discharging liability towards expenditure debited to profit loss account. This however fails to evoke our concurrence for the reasons that, section 43B opens with a non-obstante clause under the heading certain deductions to be only on actual payment . As per settled principles of interpretation, a non-obstante clause assumes an overriding character against any other provision of general application. It declares that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rein a claim against GST liability was made which by provisions of section 43B of the Act was subject matter of actual payment any-time before expiry of aforestated extended due date. Failing to which the Ld. CPC disallowed the claim for deduction u/s 43B of the Act on the basis of accountants report through TAR. 11. We see this action of disallowance by prima facie adjustment in summary assessment u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act finds support from Sri Jawahar Lal Gupta Vs ITO reported [1993] 199 ITR 726 (All.) and also finds support from CBDT Circular No. 601, dt 04/06/1991, which Ld. AR could hardly dispute during any of the proceedings including present one. However when matter travelled in an appeal to first appellate authority, the Ld. NFAC p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
