ITO CORPORATE WARD 5(4), CHENNAI vs. RAJ KISHOR ENGINEERING, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1669/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 October 2019AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) admitted additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A, and the date of payment for employee's contribution was not on record. Therefore, both issues required re-examination by the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order. The primary issues involved disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) due to admission of additional evidence by CIT(A) without affording an opportunity to the AO, and disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) where the date of payment of employee's contribution was not on record.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence without giving the AO an opportunity, and whether the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) was justified without proper evidence of payment dates.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia),Section 36(1)(va)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

For Respondent: Shri G. Baskar, Advocate
Hearing: 03.09.2019Pronounced: 01.10.2019

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -3, Chennai, dated 27.02.2018 and pertains to assessment year 2014-15.

2.

Ms. R. Anitha, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the first issue arises for consideration is disallowance of ₹6,23,16,348/- under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). According to the Ld. D.R., in the course of appellate proceeding, the CIT(Appeals) admitted additional evidence filed by the assessee without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Officer in violation of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. Therefore, the Ld. D.R. submitted that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer.

3.

We heard Shri G. Baskar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee also. The Ld.counsel very fairly submitted that the additional evidence was filed before the CIT(Appeals), therefore, the matter may be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

4.

Having heard the Ld. D.R. and the Ld.counsel for the assessee, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that since the additional material was filed before the CIT(Appeals) and the same was admitted without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Officer in violation of Rule 46A, the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the disallowance made under Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter in the light of the material that was filed by the assessee and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

5.

The next issue arises for consideration is disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act.

6.

We heard the Ld. D.R. and the Ld.counsel for the assessee.

The Ld.counsel for the assessee very fairly submitted that the date of payment of employees’ contribution is not available on record, therefore, this issue also needs to be re-examined. We have carefully gone through the orders of the authorities below. The employees’ contribution to Provident Fund and ESI was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. However, the date of actual payment was not brought on record by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, as rightly submitted by the Ld.counsel for the assessee, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter needs to be re-examined by the Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the entire disallowance made by the Assessing Officer under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall re-examine the matter and bring on record the actual date of payment of employees’ contribution to the Provident Fund and ESI and thereafter decide the issue afresh in accordance with law, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →