VIMAL WAHI PROPRIETOR JAGDISH TOURS & TRAVELS,NEW DELHI vs. ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI

That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) has erred in making the 2 disallowance on account of late deposit of ESI and PF under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act amounting to Rs. 8,84,441/-. The CIT(A) too has erred in sustaining the same. 3. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CPC has erred in not considering that the addition made is beyond the scope of Section 143(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) too has erred in sustaining the same. 4. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CPC has erred in not appreciating that no disallowance is called for + WHARE employees share of contribution is paid before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1) of the Act. The CIT(A) too has erred in sustaining the same. 5. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC has erred in not considering that the month in which the salary is actually disbursed to the employee should be considered as the relevant month of deduction for the purpose of calculating the due date of deposit of Employee Provident fund and Employees State Insurance. 6. Without prejudice, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the CPC as well as NFAC have erred on facts and in law, 6 in not considering that the expenditure incurred, being a business expenditure, ought to have been allowed under Section 37 of the Act. 7. That the CPC as well as the CIT(A) have erred in not providing any opportunity to the Assessee and the same is in violation of principle of natural justice and hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 8. That the CPC as well as the CIT(A) have erred in not considering the material available on record and have failed to judicially interpret the same as the same do not justify the addition/disallowance made. 9. That in view of the Facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CPC as well as NFAC have erred in charging interest under section 234A, 234B, 234C of the Act. The charging of interest is illegal and excessive and has been wrongly worked out. It cannot be justified by any material on record.