SAKTHIKANNA CONSTRNS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CORP WARD 6(3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1235/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 September 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that both issues require verification by the Assessing Officer (AO). The impugned order was set aside, and the issues were restored to the AO for adjudication on merits after providing the assessee an opportunity to be heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed Form 26AS and ledger extracts showing double TDS payments for advance and sales invoices, and also submitted details of EPF contributions and administrative charges paid before the due date. The assessee argued that the EPF related amount should not be disallowed.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of EPF contributions and administrative charges paid before the due date for filing the return of income is justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM & HON’BLE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM

Hearing: 11.09.2024Pronounced: 20.09.2024

PER MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member) This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)(NFAC) Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 28.02.2024 for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At the outset, ld. AR of the Assessee company filed Form 26AS for the AY 2018-19, ledger extract of Apex Laboratories Ltd as appearing in the books of the appellant (‘SCPL’ in short) for the FY 2017-18 (AY 2018-19) to show double time TDS made. It was made once during advance payment and another time during sales invoices adjustment against advance received. The ld.AR also filed ledger extract of EPF (employer’s contribution) amounting to Rs.7,47,315/- and EPF administrative charges of Rs.50,331/- (Totalling Rs.7,97,646/-) which was paid before due date for filing return of income. Hence, he prayed that Rs.7,97,646/- may be taken out from the total disallowance of Rs.15,15,018/- as it does not attract disallowance u/s 36(1)(va). The Ld.DR-Addl.CIT argued that the matter may be set aside to ld.AO to verify the averments and documents (ledger extract etc referred supra).

3.

We have heard the both parties and perused the records of the appeal papers and ledger extract etc referred supra. We find that both the issues as discussed supra require verification by the AO. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the issues are restored back to the file of Ld.AO for adjudication on merits after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its case forthwith without any fail, failing which Ld.AO shall be at liberty to proceed with the assessment on merits.

4.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 20th September, 2024 at Chennai. (मनोज कुमार अ"वाल) (मनु कुमार िग"र) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (MANU KUMAR GIRI) लेखा सद" / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "ाियक सद" / JUDICIAL MEMBER चे"ई Chennai: िदनांक Dated :20-09-2024 KV आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत /Copy to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant

2.

""थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु"/CIT, Chennai 5. गाड"फाईल/GF 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →