आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’ए’ (cid:586)ायपीठ, चे(cid:580)ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI (cid:373)ी एस.एस. िव(cid:695)ने(cid:361) रिव, (cid:586)ाियक सद(cid:735) एवं (cid:373)ी एस.आर. रगुनाथॎ, लेखा सद(cid:735) के सम(cid:407)

Before Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member &

Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.1640/Chny/2025 िनधा(cid:330)रण वष(cid:330)/Assessment Year: 2019-20 Paalar Shoes Private Limited, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of No. 151/4, Mount Poonamalee Road, Income Tax, Ramapuram, Chennai 600 089. Central Circle 1(1), Chennai.

[PAN:AAECP6556B]

(अपीलाथ(cid:334)/Appellant) ((cid:366)(cid:529)थ(cid:334)/Respondent)

अपीलाथ(cid:334) की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri D. Anand, Advocate (cid:366)(cid:529)थ(cid:334) की ओर से/Respondent by : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 25.08.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 15.05.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 18, Chennai, for the assessment year 2019-20.

2. The assessee raised 4 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration as to whether the ld. CIT(A) is justified in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].

3. At the outset, the ld. AR Shri D. Anand, Advocate submits that the assessment made under section 147 of the Act is not maintainable in respect of the addition made under section 36(1)(va) of the Act as the same issue attained finality by the order of the ld. CIT(A) in the first round of appellate proceedings. He submits that the ld. CIT(A), in the first round of original appellate proceedings, deleted the addition made by the CPC by placing reliance in the case of CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) by holding that no disallowance is warranted when the impugned amounts were paid before the due date of filing of return of income. The ld. AR placed on record copy of the order dated 11.09.2020 passed by the ld. CIT(A) in the original appellate proceedings and vehemently argued that no appeal filed by the Revenue before this Tribunal. He submits that the said issue is attained finality and reassessment made by the Assessing officer on the same issue is not maintainable. He drew our attention to the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Ramachandra Hatcheries (2008) 305 ITR 117 (Mad) and argued that the Assessing Officer has no jurisdiction to commence reassessment proceedings on the issue, which has already been adjudicated upon by the ld. CIT(A) and the Hon’ble High Court held the Tribunal correctly decided the matter in favour of the assessee.

4. Further, he drew our attention the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CCIT (OSD)/PCIT v. Bhupendra Champaklal Dalal [2024] 160 taxmann.com 645 (Bombay) and argued that the Assessing Officer could not have assessed the addition once again since the ld. CIT(A) had deleted the same in the first round of appellate proceedings and concerned matter had attained finality.

5. The ld. DR Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A).

6. Heard both the parties and perused the material on record. Admittedly, in the first round of original appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made on account of provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act by placing reliance on various case law vide his order dated 11.09.2020. Admittedly, there is no dispute with reference to the non filing of appeal by the Revenue against the said order. Therefore, as rightly argued by the ld. AR, in our opinion, the said issue attained finality by the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 11.09.2020 in the first round of original jurisdiction. On perusal of the assessment order, we note