Case Law Details
Anita Seth Vs DCIT (ITAT Kolkata)
The question is limited as to whether the CPC u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act can make any adjustment/addition in the aforesaid facts and circumstances. According to us, the CPC could not have made the adjustment since the question of fact arises on the factual matrix of this case as noted above. The assessee’s contention is that the amount of Rs. 31,21,167/- is included in the turnover of Rs. 52,81,344/-. Therefore, merely based on TDS entries given in Form 26AS for deduction of tax u/s. 194J, the adjustment could not have been made without conducting any enquiry, more particularly when the man power supply is not covered as a profession within the meaning of section 44AA of the Act read with relevant notifications. We find force in the contention of the Ld. AR that this particular issue could not have been decided by the CPC u/s. 143(1)(a) of the Act. In case, if the department finds that there is an anomaly, then it has liberty to do so by conducting scrutiny assessment under the provisions of law or to re-open the assessment u/s. 147 of the Act. Thus, we find that CPC had no jurisdiction to make impugned adjustment within the meaning of section 143(1)(a) of the Act.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT KOLKATA
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order dated 1312-2021 of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), [in short, the ld. CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 13-12-2021 for the assessment year 2017-18.
2. There is a delay of 13 days in filing the appeal. Application for condonation of delay is placed on record explaining the cause for delay. Ld. DR did not object on the delay being reasonable. Accordingly, considering the reasonableness for the cause, we condone the delay and take up the appeal for adjudication.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
