BHARATIYA BAROOD UDHYOG,NAGPUR vs. DCIT JCIT CIRCLE 2, NAGPUR

Captioned appeal by the assessee is emanating from the impugned order dated 21/03/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–1, Coimbatore, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2017–18.

“1. Because the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in disallowing Provident Fund deposited before the due date of filing of the income tax return and disallowing bonus payable though it is paid before filing of the income tax return. 2. Because the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in ascertaining the details of expenditure though it was provided by the assessee.

2 Bharatiya Barood Udyog ITA no.293/Nag./2024 3. Because the assesse had deposited the provident fund of Rs.1,22,383/- that was due on 15.01.2017 on 13.02.2017, and the amount of Rs.17,396/- disallowed is of bonus. All this information is clearly stated in TAR enclosed.

4. Because the case law of the Honorable Apex Court in case of M/s Alom Extrusion Limited & Others reported at 319 ITR 306 (SC) in the matter of provident fund contributions of the employees is totally misconstrued. Instead of allowing the amounts are disallowed.

5. Because in the detailed Tax Audit Report enclosed clearly states the above mentioned facts.

When the case was called for hearing, the learned Counsel for the 3. assessee, by way of its application dated 28/02/2025, submitted that he has opted for the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Scheme, 2024 (DTVsV Scheme, 2024) and hence he may be permitted to withdraw the appeal. He, however, requested the Bench that in the event of Department’s decision is not acceptable to the assessee, the assessee be granted liberty to file fresh appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Departmental Representative has no objection in the submissions of the assessee.