Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITAno.351/MUM/2025 (A.Y. 2017-18) EIPR(India) Private Limited , v/s. Deputy Commissioner of 603, Unit No. 14, A&B, Floor 1, बनाम Income Tax, Circle - Plot 228, Mittal Chamber, 3(1)(1), Income Tax Office, Barrister Rajani, Patel Marg, Maharishi Karve Road, New Nariman Point, Mumbai - 400 Marine Lines, Churchgate, 021, Maharashtra Mumbai 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी ले खा सं ./जीआइआर सं ./ PAN/GIR No: AAACE9094M Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी Appellant by : Shri Gyaneshwar Kataram, CA Respondent by : Shri Hemanshu Joshi, (Sr. DR) Date of Hearing 12.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 26.03.2025 आदे श / O R D E R PER PRABHASH SHANKAR [A.M.] :-

The present appeal arising from the appellate order dated 30.12.2024 is preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal)/Addl./JCIT(A) Agra [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)"] pertaining to the Intimation order passed by the CPC u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "Act"] dated 18.01.2019 for the Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2017-18.

Page |2 A.Y. 2017-18 EIPR(India)Private Limited, Mumbai

4. Without prejudice to the other grounds, in the circumstances and facts of our case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Addl./ JCIT(A), Agra has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. DCIT, CPC in upholding disallowance of Rs. 40,25,474/-

u/s 37(1) of the Act by way of adjustment under the Intimation u/s 143(1) on conjectures and surmises and therefore such adjustment in the course of processing of return under section 143(1) is vitiated and invalid in law and such disallowance /adjustment under intimation Page |3 A.Y. 2017-18 EIPR(India)Private Limited, Mumbai under section 143(1) of the Act suffers legal irregularity and cannot be sustained.

3.1 Though the adjustment pertained to two separate items i.e. disallowance of deduction claimed in respect of 'Membership and Subscription' and 'Employees Contribution to EPF', the present appeal arises from the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer (CPC, Bangalore) as an amount of Rs. 40,25,474/-pertaining to the deduction in respect of Membership and Subscription expenses only which was disallowed under Section 37 of the Act. The disallowance was based on an inconsistency noted in the TAR (Form 3CD), where the auditor reported Rs. 40,62,649/- as expenses to be disallowed, while the assessee had added Rs 37,175/-only in this regard. The resultant Page |4 A.Y. 2017-18 EIPR(India)Private Limited, Mumbai discrepancy of Rs. 40,25,474/- was added back to the appellant's income.