, , आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण इंदौर (cid:586)ायपीठ इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 230/Ind/2024 (AY: 2015-16)

RNG Construction Co. बनाम/ Addl. Jt. Dy. Asstt. ITO

14, Sector-A, Vs. Bhopal Indira Nagar, Mandideep (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent)

PAN: AAQFR9084B Assessee by Shri Yashwant Sharma, CA & AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 28.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement 12.09.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per B.M. Biyani, AM:

Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 15.02.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 27.09.2021 passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2015-16, the assessee has filed this appeal.

2. The brief facts of case are as under:

(i) The assessee, a partnership firm, filed its return of income of AY

2015-16 under consideration on 30.09.2015 u/s 139 declaring a total income of Rs. 16,14,780/- which was assessed by AO by way of scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) vide order dated 30.11.2017 at a total income of Rs. 16,54,080/- after making an addition of Rs.

39,299/- on account of difference in turnover.

(ii) Subsequently, the AO re-opened assessment u/s 147 through a notice dated 20.03.2020 u/s 148 after recording reasons. Finally, the AO completed re-opened assessment vide order dated 27.09.2021 re- determining total income at Rs. 26,77,719/- after making total additions/disallowances of Rs. 10,62,939/- consisting of two items, namely (a) disallowance of Rs. 2,30,781/- u/s 36(1)(va) on account of non-payment of PF/ESI contributions by due date and (b) disallowance of Rs. 8,32,158/- u/s 43B on account of non-payment of service tax bydue date.

(iii) Aggrieved, the assessee carried matter in first-appeal and raised certain legal objections against the proceeding of re-assessment done by AO and also challenged the merits of additions/disallowances made by AO. However, the CIT(A) rejected assessee’s submissions and dismissed first-appeal without giving any relief.

(iv) Now, the assessee has come in next appeal before us challenging the order passed by CIT(A).

3. The grounds raised by assessee are as under:

“1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the reassessment order passed by AO, which was withoutjurisdiction and bad-in-law.

2. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT(A) was notjustified in confirming the reassessmentorder passed by AO u/s 148 because no new facts surfaced regarding the subject Service Tax of Rs. 8,32,158/- soughtto be disallowed u/s. 43B as these facts were already fully disclosed and were available on record of the department in the Tax Audit Report.

3. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) was notjustified in ignoring submissions &evidences filed by the assessee before himon 10th February 2024,which are already on record.

4. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Id. CIT(A) was notjustified in confirming the disallowances of Rs. 8,34,662/-towards Service Tax because the same was neither claimed in Profit and Loss a/c nor routed through P& L a/c and was directly shown in Balance sheet in the liabilities side.

5.That, without prejudice to above and on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, ld. CIT(A) erred in maintaining disallowance ofService Tax to the extent of Rs. 8,34,662/- because as per facts available in the assessee's explanation reproduced at Page -11 of CIT(A) order, Rs. 2,44,581/- was paid before the due date offiling ofreturn on 10.08.2015 and hence was otherwise 6. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) was notjustified in rejectin