Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Gautam Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.,, ... vs Income-Tax Officer,, on 4 May, 2017
आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण पण
ु े न्यायपीठ "ए" पण
ु े में
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH "A", PUNE
सुश्री सुषमा चावऱा, न्याययक सदस्य एवं श्री राजेश कुमार, ऱेखा सदस्य के समक्ष
BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM
आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No. 2064/PUN/2014
यििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2010-11
Gautam Infra. Projects Pvt. Ltd.,
Trupti, Tapi Nagar,
Bhusawal, Jalgaon
PAN : AABCG4665P
.... अऩीऱाथी/Appellant
Vs.
Income Tax Officer,
Ward - 2(3), Jalgaon
.... प्रत्यथी / Respondent
अऩीऱाथी की ओर से / Appellant by : NONE
प्रत्यथी की ओर से / Respondent by : Shri Suhas Kulkarni
सन
ु वाई की तारीख / घोषणा की तारीख /
Date of Hearing : 03.05.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 04.05.2017
आदे श / ORDER
PER RAJESH KUMAR, AM:
The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Nashik dated 15-09-2014 for the assessment year 2010-11 arising out of assessment order passed u/s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
2ITA No. 2064/PUN/2014
2. The only issue raised by the assessee is as under :
"On the facts and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.14,21,417/- made by the A.O. u/s. 43B of the Act, on account of unpaid Work Contract Tax payable Rs.1,65,616/-, CST payable Rs.3,88,806/-, VAT payable Rs.8,66,055/- and professional tax Rs.940/- ignoring the fact that the appellant has collected the above tax as agent of the Government and has not claimed any expenditure on this count.
Your appellant craves, leave to add, alter delete above or ay other ground/s of "
appeal.
3. Despite service of notice none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor did any application for adjournment received. We are, therefore, deciding the appeal on merit after hearing the ld. DR.
4. The only issue raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.14,21,417/- by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 43B of the Act, on account of Work Contract Tax payable Rs.1,65,616/-, CST payable Rs.3,88,806/-, VAT payable Rs.8,66,055/- and professional tax payable Rs.940/-.
5. The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer found from the annual accounts and tax audit report that sum of Rs.28,98,024/- was outstanding as at the end of the year and there was no evidence on record to suggest that these were paid on or before the due date of filing of return of income in terms of section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore , the Assessing Officer disallowed and added the entire amount of Rs.28,98,024/- to the income of the assessee as not paid before the due date of filing the return of income as per the provisions of section 43B of the Act by framing ex-parte assessment dated 25-03-2013 assessing the total income of Rs.1,07,37,250/- as against the return of income of Rs.41,54,862/- 3 ITA No. 2064/PUN/2014 inter alia making various other disallowances. The detail of the said unpaid liabilities were given by the Assessing Officer in para 3.2 of the assessment order.
6. In the appellate proceedings, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) after considering the submissions and contentions raised by the assessee deleted the addition to the extent of Rs.14,76,607/- by holding that the same have been paid before the due date of filing of return, whereas rejected the contentions and submissions of the assessee as regards work contract tax payable Rs.1,65,616/-, CST payable Rs.3,88,806/-, VAT payable Rs.8,66,055/- and professional tax Rs.940/- were collected by the assessee as agent of the Govt. which were outstanding and the assessee has not claimed the same as an expenditure in the profit and loss account.
7. We have perused the material placed on record including the orders of authorities below. We find that the assessee has raised a contention before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that the various amounts outstanding on account of Work Contract Tax payable Rs.1,65,616/-, CST payable Rs.3,88,806/-, VAT payable Rs.8,66,055/- and professional tax Rs.940/- were collected as an agent of the Govt. and were not charged to the profit and loss account. The ld. DR was directed to verify contention of the assessee from the record file but he expressed his inability that nothing was clear from the record file. In such circumstances we are of the opinion that the issue requires to be verified at the end of the Assessing Officer and therefore is being restored to the file of Assessing Officer for verification with direction to delete the additions, if the assessee has collected these amounts as an agent of the Govt. and not claimed in the profit and loss account.
4ITA No. 2064/PUN/2014
8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court on 4th May, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SUSHMA CHOWLA) (RAJESH KUMAR)
न्याययक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER ऱेखा सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ऩुणे / Pune; ददनाांक Dated : 4th May, 2017.
RK
आदे श की प्रयिलऱपप अग्रेपषि/Copy of the Order is forwarded to :
1. अऩीऱाथी / The Appellant;
2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent;
3. आयकर आयुक्त(अऩीऱ) / The CIT(A)-2, Nashik;
4. आयकर आयुक्त / The CIT-2, Nashik;
5. ववभागीय प्रतततनधध, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे "ए" / DR 'A', ITAT, Pune;
6. गार्ड पाईऱ / Guard file.
ु ार/ BY ORDER, आदे शािस //सत्यावऩत प्रतत //True Copy// सहायक ऩांजीकार / Assistant Registrar, आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, ऩुणे / ITAT, Pune