IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G” NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अ.स/ं .I.T.A No.1717/Del/2025 िनधा(cid:9)रणवष(cid:9)/Assessment Year: 2018-19 DALIP SINGH RATHORE बनाम INCOME TAX OFFICER C/o Kapil Goel, Adv., F-26/124, Vs. Ward 1(2), Sector-7, Rohini, Delhi. Faridabad.

PAN No.ADMPR0089F अपीलाथ(cid:20) Appellant (cid:22)(cid:23)यथ(cid:20)/Respondent Assessee by Shri Kapil Goel, Adv.

Revenue by Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR सनु वाईक(cid:8)तारीख/ Date of hearing: 20.08.2025 उ(cid:14)ोषणाक(cid:8)तारीख/Pronouncement on 30.09.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, J.M.

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld.

Addl./JCIT(Appeals)-2, Vishakhapatnam dated 27.01.2025 for the AY

2018-19. Assessee in his appeal raised the following grounds: A) “That Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order passed u/s 250 dated 27.01.2025 erred in not quashing the impugned INTIMATION passed/processed u/s 143(1) of 1961 Act dated 13.12.2019, which is totally invalid and unlawful/illegal on face of it.

B) That Ld.CIT(A) vide impugned order passed u/s 250 dated

27.01.2025 erred in not quashing the impugned INTIMATION passed/processed u/s 143(1) of 1961 Act dated 13.12.2019, on jurisdictional ground of a) being contrary to mandate of 1961 Act and b) being totally is in violation of principle of natural justice (illustratively it is passed without issue of any valid/requisite prior show cause notice/SCN) and c) subject matter is not falling in statutory purview of sec. 143(1) and in worst case only available option was to issue notice u/s 143(2) of 1961 Act.

C) That Ld. CIT(A) vide impugned order passed u/s 250 dated 27.01.2025 erred in not deleting the impugned adjustment made in impugned INTIMATION passed/processed u/s 143(1) of 1961 Act dated 13.12.2019 amounting to Rs.45,69,143/- u/s 43B which is ex facie contrary to mandate of 1961 Act and is sustained on totally different reasoning never part of intimation u/s 143(1) of 1961 Act.

D) That Ld.CIT(A) vide impugned order passed u/s 250 dated

27.01.2025 erred in not deleting the impugned adjustment made in impugned INTIMATION passed/processed u/s 143(1) of1961 Act dated 13.12.2019 amounting to Rs.2,78,395/- made without any sort of application of mind.”

2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submitted that the CPC while processing the return made disallowance u/s 43B in respect of GST and Service Tax amounting to Rs.45,69,143/- on the ground that the same is not paid before due date of filing the return. Ld. Counsel submitted that the said amount representing GST and Service Tax were neither rooted through profit and loss account nor did the liability from service tax belong to the assessment year under consideration. Ld. Counsel further placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Chattisgarh High Court in the case of Grand Motors vs. ITO in Tax(c) No.207/2024 dated 25.11.2024 submitted that on identical facts where the CPC disallowed VAT, Entry Tax, CST while processing the return u/s 143(1), for not remitting into Government account before due date of filing of return of income made disallowance invoking the provisions of section 43B, the Hon’ble High Court referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Noble & Hewitt (I) (P.) Ltd. held that since assessee did not claim the amount in his profit and loss account as his expenditure/deduction u/s 43B, the disallowance made by CPC while processing return u/s 143(1) was deleted.

3. Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below.

4. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. The CPC while processing the return disallowed VAT & GST as these amounts were not remitted before due date for filing of return of income. The action of the CPC was confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). The issue of whether the VAT, Entry Tax, CST etc. which were neither debited to profit and loss account nor claimed as dedu