Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Nirankari Jewels Pvt. Ltd.,Delhi vs Dcit Circle-16(1), Delhi on 29 January, 2025
ITA No.2652/Del/2024
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI "E" BENCH: NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT &
SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No.2652/Del/2024
[Assessment Year : 2022-23]
Nirankari Jewels Pvt.Ltd., vs DCIT,
78-84, Edward Lane, Circle-16(1),
Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
New Delhi-110009.
PAN-AAACN5479R
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Appellant by Shri Ashu Goel, CA
Respondent by Shri Krishna K.Ramawat, Sr.DR
Date of Hearing 21.11.2024
Date of Pronouncement 29.01.2025
ORDER
PER MAHAVIR SINGH, V.P. :
This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of Ld. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Vadodara in Appeal No. ADDL/JCIT(A)-1 VADODARA/10001/2021-22 vide order dated 05.04.2024. The return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by CPC, Bengaluru vide intimation u/s 143(1) pf the Act, dated 29.07.2023 for Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as 'AY') 2022-23.
2. The only surviving issue before us is as regards the order of Ld. Addl. CIT(A) confirming the action of the CPC, Bengaluru making adjustment u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act being GST on closing stock disallowed u/s 43B of the Act. For this, the assessee has raised following Ground Nos. 3 & 4 as under:-
3. "That Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the adjustment of Rs.19,18,733/- made by Ld. ADIT, Central Processing Center (CPC), Bangalore U/s 143(1)(a) which is not covered under various items of Page | 1 ITA No.2652/Del/2024 adjustment specified U/s 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and hence adjustment so confirmed needs to be deleted.
4. That Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the adjustment of Rs.19,18,733 made by Ld. ADIT, Central Processing Center (CPC), Bangalore which is on account of GST on Closing Stock disallowed U/s 43B in preceding previous year and allowable during the year which is based on surmises, conjectures, contrary to facts, provisions of law and hence adjustment so confirmed needs to be deleted."
3. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We noted that the assessee claimed before us that this amount of GST on closing stock claimed as input against GST payable on sales which has been disallowed in earlier years need to be allowed during the year. The assessee raised this issue before Ld. Addl. CIT(A) as under:-
"That Ld. CPC, Bangalore is not justified in making adjustment of Rs.19,18,733/- being GST on Closing Stock disallowed U/s 43B in preceding previous year and allowable during the year claimed by the appellant which is based on surmises, conjectures, contrary to facts and provisions of law and hence, adjustment so made needs to be deleted."
4. The assessee before Ld. Addl. CIT(A) submitted that Rs.19,18,733/- being GST unpaid on closing stock was not paid on or before the due date of filing of return of income for AY 2021-22 and hence, the same was added back to the return of income in the computation for the relevant AY 2021-22. It was claimed that while filing the return of income for the relevant AY 2022-23, the payment of Rs.19,18,733/- being unpaid GST was paid and claimed u/s 43B of the Act. The assessee vide reply dated 26.03.2024, before Ld. Addl. CIT(A), submitted Form GSTR-9 and challan for payment of Rs.3,57,504/- pertaining to AY 2021- 22 and not for the full amount of Rs.19,18,733/-. Now, before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee only requested that the assessee will file the entire details before the Assessing Officer ("AO") in regard to this payment of GST and hence, matter can be remitted back to the file of the AO for verification.
Page | 2 ITA No.2652/Del/2024
5. After hearing both the sides and going through the facts of the case, we set aside the order of Ld. Addl. CIT(A) and that of the CPC, Bengaluru on this very issue and remand the matter back to the file of the AO on the issue of unpaid GST, which the assessee claimed to have been paid during the relevant AY 2022-
23. The AO will verify the payment of tax if paid during the year which remained unpaid in earlier AY 2021-22. In terms of the above, matter is restored back to the file of AO.
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 29 th January, 2025.
Sd/- Sd/-
(BRA JESH KU MAR SINGH) (MAHAVIR SIN GH)
ACCO UNTANT MEMBER VIC E PRESID ENT
Dated: 29/01/2025
*Amit Kumar, Sr.PS*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT, NEW DELHI
Page | 3