CA’s certificate in place of original tax challan not sufficient to prove that payment was deposited

Siel Ltd Vs DCIT (ITAT Delhi)- The issue raised is that Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the dis allowance of Rs.  18,49,950/- being amount claimed by the assessee u/s 43B of the IT Act. The assessee was asked to establish the facts from the records and from the bank accounts, but the same was never produced. Assessee contended before the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) that certificate of CA is sufficient for allowing such deduction. When the factual evidence was again called for, it was stated that the details were related to 10 years old bank record and the same is not readily available. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) noted that assessee has failed to establish the evidence of such payments before the Assessing Officer at the assessment stage and also before him. hence, he sustained the dis allowance of Rs.  18,49,950/-.

In this regard, ld. counsel of the assessee has placed reliance upon CBDT Circular No. 601 dated 4.6.1991 reported in 190 ITR 4 (St.). This reference was made by the ld. counsel of the assessee in support of the claim that for the purpose of section 43B in case there is difficulty in enclosing necessary challan etc. evidencing payment, a Certificate from a CA, as defined in the Explanation to section 288 of the Act would be sufficient.  However, we note that in this Circular in para 8 thereof it has clearly mentioned that the same will be sufficient for the purpose of making prima facie adjustments under section 143(1)(a). Further evidence can be called for in cases selected for scrutiny & 143(3) assessment. Admittedly, we are not concerned with adjustment u/s 143(1)(a). Hence, this Circular does not support the case of the assessee. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that assessee has failed to submit the necessary evidence in this regard.

Furthermore, in this regard the ld. counsel of the assessee has also placed reliance upon the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of ACIT vs. Jay Engineering Works Ltd. 114 ITR 289. In this case it was held that “where the original books of the assessee had been destroyed in a fire it was held that the Appellate Tribunal, in allowing a deduction, could rely upon other material mainly consisting of the auditor’s reports from which it could be inferred that the deductions were properly supported by the relevant entries in the accounts books.

Other issue in Appeal-

Whether payment of excise duty on behalf of a going concern of which the assessee has undertaken the liabilities is revenue expense. – NO

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.