Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, HON’BLE & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, HON’BLE
O R D E R
PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
This is the appeal preferred by the revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 16, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)”], passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’), dated 26/03/2019 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The revenue has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.56,07,000/- made by the AO on account of rent and connectivity charges as because the assessee follows the mercantile basis of accounting system and the expenses should be recorded as and when it arises.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.33,82,434/- made by the AO on account of the employees contribution to PF/ESI as because it violates the provision of Sec.36(1)(va) read with Sec 2(24)(x) of the IT Act and it contradicts the Board's Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015, Para No. 5 where it is clarified that "this Circular does not apply to claim of deduction relating to employee's contribution to welfare fund which are governed by Sec.36(1)(va) of the Act".
Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/s. Descon Ltd. 2
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the AO of Rs.80,00,000/- u/s 68 as because the assessee has failed to substantiate the genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the loan creditor company and summons u/s 131 of the IT Act issued to the assessee company for producing director of the creditor company was not complied with.
4. The appellant craves the leave to make any addition, alteration, modification etc. of the grounds either before the appellate proceedings, or in the course of appellate proceedings.”
In response to the notice of hearing, no one has come present on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we adjudicate this appeal ex-parte, qua the assessee after hearing the ld. Departmental Representative.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee company filed his return of income on 30/09/2013 disclosing total income at Rs.5,88,18,870/-. The case of the assessee was selected under CASS (Computer Aided Selection System) for scrutiny and notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was issued and served upon the assessee. The ld. AO after hearing the assessee passed the assessment order on 09/03/2016 and confirmed net taxable income of the assessee at Rs.3,65,49,320/- after making adjustment of brought forward depreciation. 5. Dissatisfied with the assessment order the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. First Appellate Authority. It has challenged the additions which are deleted by the ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order and agitated by the revenue in its four grounds of appeal
extracted supra.
6. With the assistance of the ld. Sr. D/R, we have gone through the record carefully. It is pertinent to note that sub-Clause (6) of Section 250 of the Act mandates the ld. CIT(A) to determine the points in dispute and thereafter, record reasons in support of its conclusions on these points. A perusal of the assessment order would indicate that ld. CIT(A) has not recorded any finding on the additions disputed before him. He just narrated