TUFF GUARD FORCE PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)/NFAC, DELHI
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “E” MUMBAI
Before: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT () & SHRI RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN () Assessment Year: 2018-19
PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM
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 e appellant
The learned November 202 appeal merely 2. The learn adjudicated ap rather than representation 3. The learne November 2024 appeal withou hearing to the a 4. The learn section 250 of is bad in law a II. Without 16,82,642 un 5. The lear learned AO in m of Rs.16,82,642 6. The lear service tax liab to profit and appellant claim question of disa 7. Without p facts and law directions to a 16,82,642 in appellant.
The appellant, be allowed to deleted accordi
Disallowance o
Tu
IT effective opportunity of hearing to CIT(A) erred erred in passing the order date
4 under section 250 of the Act in dismissing on account of non-prosecution.
ned CIT(A) has an obligation and ought to ppeal based on the -merits and subst n dismissing due to absence and procedural lapses.
ed CIT(A) has erred in passing the order date
4 under section 250 of the Act for the year u ut giving reasonable and effective opportuni appellant.
ned CIT(A) has passed the impugned order u the Act, purely based on prejudiced view, w and deserves to be set aside.
t prejudice to the above: Disallowance of nder section 43B of the Act rned CIT(A) erred in confirming the action of making disallowance of Service Tax Payable/
2 made under section 43B of the Act.
rned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated tha bility/GST of Rs. 16,82,642 has not been de loss account as an expenditure nor has med any deduction for the same. Therefore allowing the said amount does not arise.
prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) err w in not granting the deduction or issuing allow deduction for the Service Tax /GST of the year in which it is actually paid by therefore, prays that the deduction for the a the extent specified and the disallowance ingly kindly.
of Rs. 85,54,604 under section 36(l)(va) of the uff Guard Force Pvt. Ltd
2
TA No. 683/MUM/2025
the ed 20
g the have tance of ed 20
under ity of under which f Rs.
of the /GST at the ebited s the e, the red in g the of Rs.
y the above e, be Act
The learned CI the following a though paid by Sr. No.
Par
1
Emp
Emp
The appellant already paid th
Rs.68,58,774 b
The learned A from the Tax A disallowable u
10. The appe towards Emp
Contribution to 2. At the outset, t hearing submitted th dispute involved in th
Vishwas Scheme, 20
placed on record the scheme. The assesse
23.03.2025 dischargi the scheme.
2.1 In view of the a appeal with liberty t through finally.
Tu
IT IT(A) has erred in upholding the disallowan amounts under section 36(l)(va) of the Act y the appellant on or before due dates:
rticulars
Amou ployees' Contribution to PF
71,47, ployees' Contribution to ESIC
14,07,
Total
85,54
respectfully submits that, the appellant he above amount, the appellant has already before the due date for filing its return of Inc
O has ignored this fact which is clearly ev
Audit Report. Hence, the same is therefore nder section 36(l)(va) of the Act.
ellant, therefore, prays that the disallow ployees contribution to EPF and Emplo
ESIC of Rs.68,58,774 be kindly deleted.
the Ld. counsel for the assesse hat assessee has opted to sett he present appeal through “Dire
024”. The Ld. counsel for th e Form No. 1 & 2 prescribed ee has also filed a copy of tax ing the tax determined under th above, the assessee requested t to restore in case of applicati uff Guard Force Pvt. Ltd
3
TA No. 683/MUM/2025
nce of even nt
037
567
4,604
has paid come.
vident e, not wance oyees e at the time of tle the issue in ect tax Vivad Se e assessee has under the said x challan dated he Form No. 2 of to withdraw the on does not go
After consideri examining the releva has opted for the re Vivad Se Vishwas Sc determined there u request for withdraw reinstate the appeal under the said schem 4. In the result, th Order pronoun (RAJ KUMAR C JUDICIAL M Mumbai; Dated: 25/03/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.
Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.
////
Tu
IT ing the submissions of bot ant records, we acknowledge th esolution of the dispute under cheme, 2024" and has already r under. Accordingly, we allow wal of the present appeal, gra l in the event that the assess me is ultimately not accepted.
he appeal of the assessee is dism ced in the open Court on 25/0
/- CHAUHAN)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :
BY ORDER
(Assistant Re
ITAT, Mu uff Guard Force Pvt. Ltd
4
TA No. 683/MUM/2025
h parties and hat the assessee the "Direct Tax remitted the tax the assessee’s anting liberty to see's application missed.
03/2025. /-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai