Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO & SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER
Date of Hearing – 18/11/2024 Date of Order – 28/11/2024
O R D E R PER K.M. ROY, A.M.
This appeal by the assessee is against the impugned order dated 11/03/2024, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2018–19.
In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:–
“1. The addition made by A.O., CPC and upheld by Hon'ble CIT (Appeals), NFAC in respect to Employees Contribution to PF and ESIC at Rs.13,78,683/- is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. 2. The Hon'ble CIT (Appeals), NFAC erred in confirming addition made by A.O., CPC at Rs.13,78,683/- in respect to Employees Contribution to PF and ESIC paid before due date of submission of return.
2 Jaika Motors Pvt. Ltd.
3. The Hon'ble CIT (Appeals), NFAC erred in not following judgements of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. reported at 368 ITR 0749 (Bom.) and of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported at 319 ITR 0306 (SC) while confirming the addition of Rs.13,78,683/-.
The Hon'ble CIT (Appeals), NFAC erred in holding that Explanation -2 to sec 36(1)(va) and Explanation 5 to section 43B amended by Finance Act 2021 is retrospective and thereby confirming the addition at Rs. 13,78,683/-.
5. The assessee denies liability to pay interest u/s 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961. Without prejudice, levy of interest under section 234B and 234C of I.T. Act 1961 is unjustified, unwarranted and excessive. 6. Any other ground shall be prayed at the time of hearing.”
During the course of hearing, at the very outset, the learned Counsel, Shri Kisore P. Dewani, appearing for the assessee, submitted that the grounds of appeal are against the assessee following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Checkmate Services Pvt. Ltd. v/s CIT [2022] 448 ITR 518 (SC). However, the learned Counsel submitted as under:–
“A) The order passed by CIT(A) on 11/03/2024 without considering the submission made by assessee on 05/03/2024 along with Revised Tax Audit Report dated 06/01/2024 is unjustified. (Ref. Page-1 to14) B) On account of typographical mistake due dates had been wrongly feeded/typed in the Tax Audit Report and payments made are considered as beyond due date and are disallowed in intimation u/s 143(1). C) The delayed payment of Employee's Contribution to PF and ESIC as per Revised Tax Audit Report is at Rs.5,84,406/- only. (Ref. Pages–15, 35 & 36).”
4. The learned Counsel for the assessee further requested that the correctness of disallowance needs to be confirmed. He also submitted that these details along with Revised Tax Report was uploaded before the learned CIT(A), but the learned CIT(A) had ignored the same before passing of the impugned order. He submitted a detailed Paper Book containing 36 pages covering all the documents which are placed on record.
3 Jaika Motors Pvt. Ltd.
The learned Departmental Representative expressed that the matter may be set aside for reconsideration and fresh examination.
We find that the contentions put forth by the learned Departmental Representative are quite logical since the tax cannot be levied on an erroneous disallowance. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and the matter stands restored to the file of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer with a limited direction to determine the correct amount of disallowance. Accordingly, all the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 28/11/2024