Surya International Pvt. Ltd. Vs Central Processing Center (ITAT Lucknow)
143(1) Adjustments Based on Form 3CD Not Conclusive: ITAT Orders AO Verification
The Lucknow Bench of the ITAT partly allowed the assessee’s appeal for AY 2020-21 for statistical purposes, holding that prima facie adjustments made under section 143(1)—based solely on Form 3CD disclosures—cannot attain finality without factual verification. The CPC had added ₹1.75 crore treating a bank guarantee reported as contingent liability (Sl. 21(g) of Form 3CD) as income, and disallowed ₹3.18 lakh of electricity expenses under section 40A(3).
The Tribunal noted that the bank guarantee was reported due to an auditor’s mistake and that merits require examination (nature of liability, accounting entries, year-wise linkage). Similarly, on 40A(3), there was insufficient clarity on why some electricity payments were in cash (availability of banking facilities, location-wise facts, Rule 6DD). Since these aspects demand verification, the ITAT set aside the CIT(A)’s order and remanded both issues to the AO for de-novo adjudication after granting opportunity to the assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT LUCKNOW
(A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.323/Lkw/2025 has been filed by the assessee pertaining to assessment year 2020-21 against impugned appellate order dated 18/03/2025 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2024-25/1074634772(1) passed by learned Addl./Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short]. In this appeal the assessee has raised the following grounds:
“BECAUSE,
(1) Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the validity of Assessment order under section 2(8) of the Act in the form of ‘intimation’ under section 143(1) dated 24.12.2021, after observing that
“Ground A: Disallowance of Rs.3,18,342/- u/s 40A(3):
The description in column 21(d) and the reply filed is as under :
