Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee appealed an order by the CIT(A) concerning assessment year 2015-2016. The appeal raised three issues, including additions made under section 68 for unsecured loans, a mismatch between 26AS and P&L account, and disallowance for delayed payment of employee contributions to PF and ESI.
Held
The Tribunal restored the first two issues regarding unsecured loans and the mismatch between 26AS and P&L to the AO for readjudication, granting the assessee an opportunity to present details and reconcile differences. The third issue concerning delayed payment of PF & ESI contributions was confirmed as it was squarely covered by a Supreme Court decision.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) for unsecured loans and mismatch in accounts are sustainable, and whether the disallowance for delayed payment of employee contributions to PF & ESI is valid.
Sections Cited
68, 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI RAJESH KUMAR
(�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Niladree Build-Tech Private Ltd, Vs DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar Sipasarubali, Baliapanda, Puri-752001 PAN No. :AABCN 3986 C (अपीलाथ� /Appellant) (��यथ� / Respondent) .. �नधा�रती क� ओर से /Assessee by : Shri B.K.Mahapatra, AR राज�व क� ओर से /Revenue by : Shri Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, CIT-DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of Hearing : 02/12/2025 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 02/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 18.03.2025 for the assessment year 2015-2016.
It was submitted by the ld. AR that there are three issues in the appeal of the assessee. The first issue is against the action of the ld.CIT(A) in confirming the addition made by the AO by invoking of provision of section 68 of the Act in respect of the unsecured loans received from the director of the assessee company. It was submissions that in the case of one of the directors the assessee had received the unsecured loan of Rs.2.5 crores and Rs.15 lakhs relating to the opening balance. It was submission that the other director had given an unsecured loan of Rs.50 lakhs. It was submission that before the AO the details were provided and AO had issued notice u/s.133(6) of the Act and the reply in respect of one of the director came before the completion of assessment, whereas in in one of the case the reply came after the assessment. It was the submission he had no objection if the issue is restored to the filed of the AO for examination and readjudication.
To this, the Ld.CIT DR did not raise any objection.
Consequently, considering the submission of the Ld. AR and the facts of the case, this issue is restored to the fie of the AO for readjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. All issues are left opened before the AO in respect of the unexplained unsecured loan.
In regard, to second issue, it was submission that this is an addition made by treating the mismatch between 26AS and P & L Account and the VAT return of the assessee as the undisclosed income. It was submission that this variation had been reconciled before the AO but in the appeal before the Ld.ACIT(A), the ld CIT(A) had not given any specific finding or adjudicated on the issue. It was submission that he has no objection if issue is also restored to the file before the AO and the assessee would give all the details before the AO.
To this, it was submission of the Ld.CIT DR that he has no objection if the issue is restored to the file of ld. AO for readjudication.
Considering the submission of the Ld.AR, this issue is restored to the file of the AO so as to grant the assessee adequate opportunity to reconcile the difference between Form 26AS and the P&L account and the bank account after granting the assesse adequate opportunity of being heard.
8. In regard to the third issue, it was submission that this issue is related to the disallowance u/s.2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) of the Act. It was submission that this was on account of delayed payment of the employees contribution to PF and ESI. It was prayer that the this issue could also be restored to the file of the AO.
In reply, the Ld.CIT DR submitted that this issue is now squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2022) 448 ITR 518(SC).
We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the issue of the delayed payment of the employee’s contribution to the PF & ESI is now squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2022) 448 ITR 518(SC), the addition as made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) on this issue stands confirmed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 02/12/2025. Sd/- Sd/- (राजेश कुमार) (जाज� माथन) (RAJESH KUMAR) (GEORGE MATHAN) लेखा सद�य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER �या�यक सद�य / JUDICIAL MEMBER �दनांक Dated 02/12/2025 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant - ��थ� / The Respondent- 2. 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयु�त / CIT