M/S. G.S. ATWAL & CO.(ENGG.) PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE - 11(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 95/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 December 2023AY 2015-20163 pages
AI SummaryWithdrawn

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's counsel withdrew all grounds of appeal. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed as withdrawn.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the order of the CIT(A) confirming disallowances related to employee contributions to PF and ESI, and interest on PF. The assessee's counsel, with client's instruction, withdrew all grounds of appeal.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the disallowance of employee contributions to PF and ESI and interest on PF. However, the appeal was dismissed due to withdrawal of grounds.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 139(1),Section 36(1)(va),Section 43B,Section 37

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

order : December 08, 2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा/ Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 03.01.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). 2. The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that on the facts of the case, the order passed by the Ld. CI.T.(A) on 03.01.2023 is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal.

1.

2. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) was wrong in confirming the disallowance towards employees contribution towards Assessment Year: 2015-16 M/s G.S. Atwal & Co.(Engg) Pvt. Ltd P.F. amounting to Rs.70,17,377/- and ESI of Rs.34,653/-, totalling at Rs.70,52,030/- which is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal.

3. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. C.I.T.(A) was wrong in not considering the facts that the payment was made towards contribution of P.F. of Rs. 70,17,377/- & E.S.I. of Rs.34,653/-, before filing of the return u/s. 139(1) of the I.T. Act on 18.09.2015 or grace period within 20th of the following month, allowable u/s. 36(1) (va) /43B covered by various Courť's judgements as such his finding is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal.

4. For that the amendment brought in by Finance Act, 2021 on this issue has been held to be prospective in nature in the case of Shri Harendra Nath Biswas (supra), therefore, Bench reiterate the same view that the amendment/explanation brought in by Finance Act, 2021 with effect from 01.04.2021 on this issue is prospective; and taking note that the relevant assessment year i.e. 2015-16 the ibid explanation brought in by Finance Act, 2021, cannot be used/applied to unsettle the settled position of law passed by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijayshree Ltd. (supra), since there is no retrospective legislative over-ruling. Therefore, the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal.

5. For that on the facts of the case, the Ld. C.I.T. (A) was wrong in confirming the disallowance of Interest on P.F. amounting to Rs.3,7 1,386/- & 12,404/-, totalling at Rs.3,83,790/- which is an allowable expenditure u/s. 37 of the I.T. Act, as such his finding is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal.

5. For that the appellant reserves the right to adduce any further ground or grounds, if necessary, at or before the hearing of the appeal.”

3.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee filing a letter dated 30.11.2023 has stated that as per the instruction of his client, he withdraw all the grounds of appeal. The ld. DR has no objection in this regard. In view of this, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →