TUFF GUARD FORCE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)/NFAC, DELHI

This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2018-19, raising the following grounds:

I. Order passed by CIT (A) under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein referred to as "the Act") merely on account of non-prosecution without giving reasonable reasonable effective opportunity of hearing to the reasonable effective effective opportunity of hearing opportunity of hearing to the to the appellant

2. The learned CIT(A) has an obligation and ought to have 2. The learned CIT(A) has an obligation and ought to have 2. The learned CIT(A) has an obligation and ought to have adjudicated appeal based on the adjudicated appeal based on the -merits and substance merits and substance rather than dismissing due to absence of rather than dismissing due to absence of rather than dismissing due to absence of representation and procedural lapses. representation and procedural lapses.

3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the order dated 20 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the order dated 20 3. The learned CIT(A) has erred in passing the order dated 20 November 2024 under section 250 of the Act for the year under November 2024 under section 250 of the Act for the year under November 2024 under section 250 of the Act for the year under appeal without giving reasonabl appeal without giving reasonable and effective opportunity of e and effective opportunity of hearing to the appellant. hearing to the appellant. 4. The learned CIT(A) has passed the impugned order under 4. The learned CIT(A) has passed the impugned order under 4. The learned CIT(A) has passed the impugned order under section 250 of the Act, purely based on prejudiced view, which section 250 of the Act, purely based on prejudiced view, which section 250 of the Act, purely based on prejudiced view, which is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. is bad in law and deserves to be set aside. II. Without prejudice to the II. Without prejudice to the above: Disallowance of Rs. above: Disallowance of Rs. 16,82,642 under section 43B of the Act 16,82,642 under section 43B of the Act 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of the learned AO in making disallowance of Service Tax Payable/GST learned AO in making disallowance of Service Tax Payable/GST learned AO in making disallowance of Service Tax Payable/GST of Rs.16,82,642 made under section 43B of the Act. of Rs.16,82,642 made under section 43B of the Act. 6. The lear 6. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the ned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the service tax liability/GST of Rs. 16,82,642 has not been debited service tax liability/GST of Rs. 16,82,642 has not been debited service tax liability/GST of Rs. 16,82,642 has not been debited to profit and loss account as an expenditure nor has the to profit and loss account as an expenditure nor has the to profit and loss account as an expenditure nor has the appellant claimed any deduction for the same. Therefore, the appellant claimed any deduction for the same. Therefore, the appellant claimed any deduction for the same. Therefore, the question of disallowing the question of disallowing the said amount does not arise. 7. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in 7. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in 7. Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) erred in facts and law in not granting the deduction or issuing the facts and law in not granting the deduction or issuing the facts and law in not granting the deduction or issuing the directions to allow deduction for the Service Tax /GST of Rs. directions to allow deduction for the Service Tax /GST of Rs. directions to allow deduction for the Service Tax /GST of Rs. 16,82,642 in the year in which it is 16,82,642 in the year in which it is actually paid by the actually paid by the appellant.

The appellant, therefore, prays that the deduction for the above The appellant, therefore, prays that the deduction for the above The appellant, therefore, prays that the deduction for the above be allowed to the extent specified and the disallowance, be be allowed to the extent specified and the disallowance, be be allowed to the extent specified and the disallowance, be deleted accordingly kindly. deleted accordingly kindly. Disallowance of Rs. 85,54,604 under section 36(l)(va) of the Act Disallowance of Rs. 85,54,604 under section 36(l)(va) of the Act Disallowance of Rs. 85,54,604 under section 36(l)(va) of the Act The learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of earned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of earned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowance of the following amounts under section 36(l)(va) of the Act even the following amounts under section 36(l)(va) of the Act even the following amounts under section 36(l)(va) of the Act even though paid by the appellant on or before due dates: though paid by the appellant on or before due dates:

Sr. No. Particulars Particulars Amount Amount 1 Employees' Contribution to PF Employees' Contribution to PF 71,47,037 71,47,037 2 Employees' Contribution to ESIC Employees' Contribution to ESIC 14,07,567 14,07,567 Total 85,54,604 85,54,604 The appellant respectfully submits that, the appellant has The appellant respectfully submits that, the appellant has The appellant respectfully submits that, the appellant has already paid the above amount, the appellant has already paid already paid the above amount, the appellant has already paid already paid the above amount, the appellant has already paid Rs.68,58,774 before the due date for filing its return of Income. Rs.68,58,774 before the due date for filing its return of Income. Rs.68,58,774 before the due date for filing its return of Income. The learned AO has ignored this fact which is clearly evident learned AO has ignored this fact which is clearly evident learned AO has ignored this fact which is clearly evident from the Tax Audit Report. Hence, the same is therefore, not from the Tax Audit Report. Hence, the same is therefore, not from the Tax Audit Report. Hence, the same is therefore, not disallowable under section 36(l)(va) of the Act. disallowable under section 36(l)(va) of the Act.

2.1 In view of the above, the assessee requested to withdraw the In view of the above, the assessee requested to withdraw the In view of the above, the assessee requested to withdraw the appeal with liberty to restore in case of application does not go appeal with liberty to restore in case of application does not go appeal with liberty to restore in case of application does not go through finally.