IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI (VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA)

SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 Assam Gas Company Limited, Duliajan, Assam - 786602 .............…...……………....Appellant [PAN: AABCA6977C]

vs.

DCIT/ACIT, Circle 1 /DBR, Aayakar Bhawan, Chowkidinghee, Assam - 786003 …................................. Respondent Appearances by:

Assessee represented by : R.K. Choudhary, FCA Department represented by : Kausik Ray, JCIT Date of concluding the hearing : 08.10.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 16.10.2025

ORDER

PER SANJAY AWASTHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1. The present appeal arises from the order under Section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) passed by the Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, NOIDA [hereafter “the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A)”], dated 27.01.2025.

2 In this case, the assessee had claimed deduction for bonus payment u/s 43B of the Act on the ground that all legally permissible timelines were complied with. Secondly, the claim for TDS credit was denied on the grounds of mis-match in Form 26AS. These were adversely dealt with by the Ld. AO-CPC u/s 143(1) of the Act, prompting the assessee to approach the CIT(A), where he could not succeed on the basis of the following findings:

“4.2 Ground 2: Disallowance of Bonus Paid to Employees under Section 43B

4.2.1 The appellant has contested the disallowance of Rs. 1,10,43,057 under Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The appellant claims that the bonus was paid by 30th October 2019, which was the extended due date for filing the return under Section 139(1), and therefore, the disallowance is unwarranted.

4.2.2 in support of this claim, the appellant has submitted ledger accounts, payment vouchers, and a Chartered Accountant's certificate dated 25th December 2024, to substantiate that the payments were made within the stipulated timeframe.

4.2.3 However, it is seen that the Tax Audit Report filed with the original return explicitly mentions that the bonus provision remained unpaid as of the original return filing date of 30th September 2019. The other fact is that the extended return filing date does not affect the statutory requirement under Section 43B for payments to be made by the due date.

4.2.4 Upon examination, it is observed that the Tax Audit Report clearly states that the provision for bonus was unpaid as of the original due date of 30th September 2019. The appellant did not submit a revised Tax Audit Report to reflect the payments allegedly made within the extended date. This omission undermines the credibility of the appellant's claim.

4.2.5 The Supreme Court, in CIT v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009), has held that the provisions of Section 43B must be strictly complied with. Similarly, the Bombay High Court in CIT v Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (2014) has clarified that the extended due date for filing the return does not override the deadline for making payments under Section 438.

4.2.6 The appellant's reliance on a Chartered Accountant's certificate dated 25th December 2024 is misplaced. A certificate prepared long after the filing of the return and the issuance of the assessment order cannot be considered conclusive evidence. Moreover, the appellant's failure to file a revised return under Section

139(5) further weakens its case.

4.2.7 It is also pertinent to note that the legislative intent of Section 438 is to ensure timely compliance with payment obligations. The appellant's argument that the extended due date should apply is not supported by any statutory provision or judicial precedent

4.2.8 Based on the above findings, it is held that the disallowance of Rs. 1,10,43,057 under Section 43B was correctly made. Accordingly, this ground of appeal is rejected.

4.3 Ground 3: Disallowance of TDS Credit

4.3.1 The appellant has challenged the disallowance of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) credit amounting to Rs. 4.98,09,173. The appellant claims th