No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’ble
per various decisions and as accepted by Hon'ble ITAt,
Indore Bench in the appeals of the assessee company
for the assessment years 1993-94 to 96-97 after
detailed discussion. Following the decision of the
Hon'ble ITAT, this claim of the assessee is allowed.”
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the
same fashion has dealt with other grounds also and the
details of the facts as well as the basis of deciding the
issues is not properly emanating from the appellate order.
In some way we can say that the finding of the learned
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is cryptic and does
not deal properly with the issues involved so much so that
the citations of the judgments relied upon by him have not
been given. Further there is none at the assessee’s behest
to provide us necessary details which can enable us to
adjudicate the issues in proper way. We, therefore, in the
interest of justice and fair play, direct the learned
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide de novo all
the issues involved in these three appeals bearing ITA Nos.
574/Ind/2002, 682/Ind/2003 and 683/Ind/2003 after
considering each and every aspect of the matter including
the citations of the judgment (if any) and after providing
adequate opportunity of hearing should pass an elaborate
and speaking order. We order accordingly and allow all the
three appeals of the revenue for statistical purposes.
ITA No. 395/Ind/2007 (A.Y. 2003-04)
In this appeal the revenue has raised the following
grounds :-
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
ld. CIT(A) has erred in allowing the relief in respect
of belated payment of P.F. Rs.18,38,452/- and ESI
Rs.4,42,221/- holding that the said amounts have
been paid within the stipulated time u/s 139(1) of
the Income tax Act.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
ld. CIT(A) has erred in applying the amendment to
proviso to section 43B made by the Finance Act,
2003 retrospectively inspite of the facts that the
amendment was made w.er.f. 1.04.2004.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case,
ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of
Rs.4,26,598/- made by the A.O. as interest income
being not charged by the assessee on the loan
advanced to Elixier Impex (P) Ltd.”
We have heard the learned DR and perused the
material available on record. So far as issues raised in
Ground no. 1 & 2 relating to PF and ESIC payments of
Rs.18,38,522/- and Rs. 4,42,271/-, respectively are
concerned, we find that while granting relief to the
assessee, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) has given the following findings :-
“ That Hon'ble ITAT Indore Bench vide its order
dated 29.08.2005 (Appeal No. ITA No. 390/Ind/99) in
the case of JCIT vs. Shree Balaji Industries has dealt
with the omission of the said second proviso and held
that the said amendment is retrospective in nature and
accordingly contribution ton PF is to be allowed
deduction if the said sum is actually paid by the
assessee on or before the due date of filing of return as
stipulated in section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act.
That Special Bench in the case of Quality Milk
Foods vs. ACIT report in 284 ITR 89 (AT)(SB) (Chennai)
has confirmed the above view. I have considered the
argument put forth by the learned learned AR before me
in detail and also go through the decision relied on by
him. I find sufficient force in arguments of the assessee.
Since in the present case all contribution towards PF
and ESI were made by the assessee on or before the
due dates of the filing of the return of income. Thus, in
view of amended provisions of law and after
considering the decisions of ITAT, Indore Bench the
claim of the assessee is allowable. The A.O. is therefore
directed to allow the claim of the assessee in respect of
PF and ESIC payments of Rs. 18,38,522/- and
Rs.4,42,271/- respectively.”
Before us, the learned DR could not controvert the
above findings of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals). We, therefore, confirm the findings of the
learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In this
view of the matter, this ground of appeal of the revenue
stands dismissed.
So far as ground no. 3 to the effect that the ld. CIT(A)
has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,26,598/- made by
the A.O. as interest income being not charged by the
assessee on the loan advanced to Elixier Impex (P) Ltd. is 28
concerned, we find that the learned Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals) has granted relief to the assessee by
observing as under :-
“ As regards Elixir Impex Pvt. Ltd. in the present
assessment year assessee has furnished complete
details i.e. copy of account for the asst. year 2003-04
and 04-05 and bills of raw materials issued by the said
party. That after perusal of the above details it is
beyond doubt that it is a trade account thus no interest
is chargeable. The appellant has filed copy of balance
sheet where the same is reflected as trade advance.
That after considering the facts of the case and
submissions made, the said disallowance of interest of
Rs. 4,26,598/- made on the amount advanced to Elixir
Impex Pvt. Ltd. is deleted. Thus the assessee is allowed
relief of Rs.4,26,598/-.”
We have heard the learned DR and perused the
material available on record. We find that the above finding
of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)
shows that the alleged account of Elixir Impex Pvt. Ltd. is a
trade advance account and, therefore, the assessee was not
liable to charge any interest on the same. Before us, the
revenue has utterly failed to bring any corroborative
material on record to rebut the above finding of the learned
Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). We, therefore, find
no flaw in the order of the learned Commissioner of Income
Tax (Appeals) and accordingly confirm the same.
In the result, appeals of the assessee bearing No.
413/Ind/2007 and CO Nos. 75 & 76/Ind/2009 are
dismissed being barred by limitation, ITA Nos.
262/Ind/2008 and 263/Ind/2008 are dismissed for non-
prosecution, revenue’s appeals bearing Nos.
574/Ind/2002, 582/Ind/2003 and 683/Ind/2003 are
allowed for statistical purposes and revenue’s appeal ITA
No. 395/Ind/2007 is allowed.
Order pronounced in open Court on 27th June, 2018.
Sd/- sd/-
( KUL BHARAT) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER June, 2018 Dn/- Copy to: The Appellant/Respondent/CIT concerned/CIT(A) concerned/ DR, ITAT, Indore/Guard file. By order Private Secretary/DDO, Indore