Mistake by CA in Tax Audit Report if demonstrated with relevant material enough, Insistence of correction in audit report is not justified
ABCAUS Case Law Citation
ABCAUS 3654 (2023) (02) ITAT
Important Case Laws covered:
Checkmate Services Pvt. Limited vs. CIT
In the instant case, the appellant assessee was in appeal before the Tribunal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC).
The primary grievances was that CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).
Dissatisfied with this disallowance, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) and contended that the assessee’s case was to be examined under the sector related Provident Fund Scheme wherein the due date is last date of the next month in which the payment was received.
The assessee brought it to the notice of the CIT(Appeals) that there is no lapse for making the payments. These payments had been made within the due date.
A written submission to that effect was filed before the CIT(Appeals) stating that the there was a mistake in Tax Audit Report, i.e. the tax auditor of the assessee had mentioned the wrong due dates in tax audit report.
The Revenue contended that the assessee should have corrected its audit report.
The Tribunal observed that the auditor of the assessee has committed an error by mentioning the wrong due date for making the payment of employees’ and employer’s contribution towards the Provident Fund Account and accordingly the Assessing Officer had disallowed the Provident Fund payments, which according to him, were paid after the expiry of due dates.
The Tribunal further observed that the first Appellate Authority had blindly concurred with the Assessing Officer without examining the details of actual payment. He just harped upon the audit report in which the factual error crept at the end of the auditor.
The Tribunal stated that once a point is being raised by the assessee in an appeal with the help of relevant material demonstrating the factual error, the CIT(Appeals) is bound to cross verify such facts and adjudicate the issue on merit.
The Tribunal opined that the CIT(Appeals) failed to appreciate the controversy in true perspective inspite of bringing all relevant material facts.
Taking into consideration the sector specific Provident Fund Scheme and the actual payments made by the assessee within the due date, the Tribunal held that there was no lapse at the end of the assessee for claiming the deduction.
Accordingly the ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee and deleted the disallowance.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- Notice issued u/s 143(2) prior to filing of return of income assessee is invalid
- Order u/s 148A(d) passed against non-existent entity is bad in eyes of law – High Court
- Tax authorities not bound with provisions of section 44AE once assessee waived option
- Whether seized document is incriminating or not is a findings of fact – High Court
- Interest earned on borrowed funds/unutilized capital subsidy is capital receipts – High Court
