MADHYA PRADESH COUNSALTANCY ORGANISATION LIMITED,BHOPAL vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1), BHOPAL, BHOPAL

That on the facts and law and in the circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT (Appeal) has wrongly added interest income from Raipur deposit u/s 56 of Rs.35,230 without considering the submissions placed on record and wrongly interpreting / ignoring the facts.

That on the facts and law and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT (Appeal) has incorrectly not allowed the claim of ESIC /PF u/s 224(x) r.w. S.36(vii)(a) of Rs.13,04,862 without considering the submissions placed on record and wrongly interpreting the law.

That on the facts and law and in the circumstances of the case the Id. CIT (Appeal) has incorrectly added income from Punjab National Bank not offered to tax of Rs.18,35,393 without considering the submissions placed on record and wrongly interpreting / ignoring the facts.

That on the basis of above facts, the assessee creeps to leave, to arch, to argue, to amend any of the grounds of the appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

Apropos to Ground No.1 & 2 relating to disallowance of prior period expenditure of Rs.2,79,078/- and addition for interest u/s 56 of the Act at Rs.35,230/- during the course of hearing no submissions were made by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. No written submissions have been filed. It seems that the assessee is not interested in contesting/pressing these grounds. We, therefore, are of the view that ground No.1 & 2 deserves to be dismissed as not pressed. We accordingly, order so and dismiss the assessee’s ground no.1 & 2.

Per contra Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) could not controvert the contention made by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. In Ground No.3 the assessee is aggrieved with the finding of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of ESIC & PF of Rs. 13,04,862/- being not paid before the due date as provided in section 36(i)(va) of the Act. It has been submitted before us by Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the alleged amount was paid beyond the due date provided in section 2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) but was finally paid before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. Details of the payments are placed in paper book pages 83 to 102. From perusal of the payment details we find that the alleged amount relating to ESIC & PF has been paid before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act.

We, therefore, respectfully following the above judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, are of the considered view since the alleged payment has been paid before the due date of filing return of income. Providing u/s 139(1) of the Act no disallowance was called for towards delay in payment of ESIC & PF at Rs.13,04,862/-. We, therefore, set aside the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and allow ground No.3 raised by the assessee.

Apropos Ground No.4 for the addition of Rs.18,35,393/-, at the outset Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that there was mismatch between the bills raised by the assessee to Punjab National Bank vis-a-vis the details available in 26AS form for the tax deducted at source and the value of services on which the tax is deducted. But due to lack of reconciliation the alleged amount has been added. Request was made for setting aside the issue to the file of Ld. AO for necessary reconciliation and decide accordingly.

We have heard rival contentions and perused the record placed before us. In ground no.4 the assessee has challenged the finding of Ld. CIT(A) confirming the addition of Rs.18,35,393/- for the alleged income from Punjab National Bank not offered to tax. We observe that the assessee provide services to Punjab National Bank. The assessee has made a short claim of TDS of Rs.25,390/-. The Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the Punjab National Bank has shown wrong amount of credit/payment of Rs.26,51,126/- in form 26AS as against which the bill of Rs.8,15,733/- was raised to PNB by the Assessee and due to this mismatch Ld. AO made the addition. Subsequently, there were some communications with the PNB and the amount has been reconciled.

In these given facts we are of the view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to provide necessary information along with details of receipt from PNB, in order to prove that there is no mismatch in the records. Ld. AO shall provide necessary opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after examining the records including the reconciliation statement to be filed by the assessee should decide the issue afresh as per the provisions of law. Accordingly, ground No.4 of the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.