Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri S.S. Godara
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ Bench, Hyderabad (Through Video Conferencing) Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member AND Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2016-17 Joint Commissioner of Vs. M/s. Nava Bharat Income Tax (OSD), Ventures Limited, Circle – 5(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. PAN : AAACN7327C. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri V. Siva Kumar. Revenue by: Shri Swapnil Patil for T.S. Goutam. Date of hearing: 02.02.2022 Date of pronouncement: 08.02.2022 O R D E R Per S. S. Godara, J.M.
This Revenue’s appeal for A.Y. 2016-17 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 4, Hyderabad’s order dated 18.01.2019 in case No.10254/18-19/ACIT, Cir-16(1)/CIT(A)- 4/Hyd/19-20 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, ‘the Act’].
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
The appeal filed by the Revenue is barred by limitation by 185 days. It has moved a condonation explaining reasons thereof. We have heard both the parties on this preliminary issue. Having regard to the reasons given in the petition, we condone the delay and admit the appeal for hearing.
The Revenue’s first and foremost substantive ground pleaded in the instant appeal challenges correctness of the CIT(A)’s action deleting section 14A r.w.r 8D disallowance of Rs.1,85,89,392/- made by the Assessing Officer for the sole reason that the assessee had not derived any exempt income in the relevant previous year.
It transpires during the course of hearing that the assessee has indeed derived exempt income. The assessee; however, invited our attention to its written submissions filed on 03.12.2021 that the impugned exempt income in the nature of dividends had infact come from M/s. Avanthi Feeds Ltd, IDBI Bank Limited, Andhra Bank, Tata Consultancy Services Limited, MOIL Ltd and Srinivasa Cystine Limited, involving varying sums. That being the case, we are of the considered opinion that the learned CIT(A)’s findings deleting the impugned disallowance because of the above stated sole reason goes contrary to the facts on record. We thus accept the Revenue’s arguments qua the instant former substantive ground in principle and restore this former issue back to the file of CIT(A) for his afresh adjudication as per law. Ordered accordingly. 5. Next comes the latter issue of ESI / PF disallowance of Rs.29,03,585/- made by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order dt.28.12.2018 and reversed in the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion. The assessee’s and Revenue’s plea(s) before us are 2 that the same had been paid before the due date of filing Sec.139(1) return and after the due date prescribed in the corresponding statutes; respectively. We notice in this factual backdrop that the legislature has not only incorporated necessary amendment in Sections 36(1)(va) as well as u/s. 43B vide Finance Act, 2021 to this effect but also the CBDT has issued Memorandum of Explanation that the same applies w.e.f. 01-04-2021 only. It is further not an issue that the foregoing legislative amendments have proposed employers’ contribution/ disallowance u/s.43B as against employee’s contribution u/s.36(va) of the Act; respectively. However, keeping in mind the fact that the same has been clarified to be applicable with prospective effect from 01-04-2021 only, we hold that the impugned disallowance is not sustainable in view of all these latest developments. The CIT(A)’s order deleting disallowance is affirmed therefore. No other ground has been pressed before us.
This Revenue’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes in above terms.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 8th February, 2022.