Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
O R D E R
Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member
This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A)-3, Bangalore dated 16.01.2019 for Assessment Year 2015-16.
The grounds raised
by the assessee are as under. “1. The order passed by the learned CIT (A) to the extent prejudicial to the appellant is bad in law and liable to be quashed.
2. The CIT (A) has erred in upholding the Order of the DCIT 3(1)(1) by disallowing the deduction towards Contractors' Benevolent Fund (CBF), a Statutory Business Expenditure on the ground that it is a Charitable Donation u/s. 40a.
3. The learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act on the amount so disallowed.”
3. In course of hearing, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that as per para no. 4.3 of his order, it is held by ld. CIT(A) that assessee has not produced any documents to show that 0.1% deduction towards Contractor Welfare fund was also in the nature of cess or levy imposed by the Government. He Page 2 of 3 submitted that on pages 266 to 275 of the paper book is the copy of the Proceedings of the Govt of Karnataka (Public Works, CAD & Electricity Department) requiring the departments to deduct amounts towards Contractors beneficiary fund from the amounts payable to PWD Contractors. He submitted that this document could not be produced before ld. CIT(A) as the same was not available with the assessee at that point of time. The assessee has procured the same afterwards. He submitted that this additional evidence should be admitted because it goes to the root of the matter and the matter may be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for a fresh decision in the light of this additional evidence. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions. We find that as per para 4.3 of his order, ld. CIT(A) has decided the issue against the assessee on this basis that the assessee has not produced any document to show that 0.1% deduction towards Contractor Welfare fund is in the nature of cess or levy imposed by the Government. Now the assessee has produced on record this additional evidence and it has been submitted before us that para 9 of this is relevant and applicable and in the interest of justice, we admit the additional evidence and restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision in the light of this additional evidence brought on record by the assessee. We want to make it clear that we do not make any comment about the allowability of deduction claimed by the assessee and ld. CIT(A) should decide the matter as per law in the light of this additional evidence.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.