ARINNA LIFESCIENCE PVT LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad (“CIT(A)” in short) dated 23.10.2017 and the grounds raised by the assessee therein read as under:- (1) The CIT(A-1 has erred in law in not adjudicating Ground No.1 viz. "Loss determined at Rs.45347890/- be determined at Rs.45347890 + 20142363 = 65490253/- and consequential relief be granted. Deferred Tax provided Rs.20142363/- is not income liable to tax." Treating the ground as general in nature although written submissions and paper book containing 85 pages filed including Hon. Gujarat High Court decisions. The CIT(A)-1 be directed to decide Ground No. 1 as it is specific and not of general in nature. (2) Without prejudice to the above the appellant prays Hon. ITAT to decide Ground No.1 viz. Deferred Tax provided Rs.20142363/- is not income liable to tax and therefore loss determined at Rs.45347890/- be determined at Rs.45347890 + 20142363 = 65490253/- and consequential reliefs be granted. (3) Addition of Rs.1887307/- U/s.2(24)(x) of Employee PF be deleted. Amount of Rs.222744/- is the only payment beyond due date be retained.

We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record.

Apropos Ground Nos. 1 & 2, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the issue raised therein was not decided by the learned CIT(A) vide his impugned order inspite of the fact that the same was specifically raised by way of Ground No.1 in the appeal filed before the learned CIT(A) and the written submission along with paper-book containing 85 pages was also filed before the learned CIT(A) in support of the same. Even the learned DR has not been able to dispute this position which is clearly evident from the record. We, therefore, remit this matter back to the learned CIT(A) with the direction to consider and decide the issue raised by the assessee specifically in Ground No.1 after considering the written submission and paper-book already filed by the assessee and after giving the assessee a proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard. Ground Nos. 1 & 2 of the assessee’s appeal are accordingly treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

As regards the issue raised in Ground No.3 relating to the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) on account of belated payment of Employees’ Provident Fund amounting to Rs.18,87,307/-, the learned Counsel for the assessee has submitted that all these payments were made within the grace period of 5 days allowed under the Employees’ Provident Funds Act and there being no delay of the said payments beyond the period allowed under the relevant Act including the grace period, the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is not sustainable. He has also submitted that the concession of grace period of 5 days under the Employees’ Provident Funds Act has been withdrawn subsequently from February 2016 and since the period covered under this appeal is FY

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.