Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : SMC-II : NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM
ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 10.1.2014 pursuant to the order passed by the AO u/s 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called ‘the Act’) in relation to the Assessment Year 2006-07.
First two grounds are against the sustenance of addition of Rs.3,25,706/- on account of difference of amount credited to the Profit & Loss Account and as per TDS certificates. The ld. AR raised an oral ground against the sustainability of addition of Rs.2,78,9335/- on account of late payment of employees’ contribution of Provident Fund, which was also raised before the ld. CIT(A) but inadvertently omitted to be included in the Memo of appeal.
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. In so far as the first issue is concerned, the AO rectified the order by observing that the assessee credited a sum of Rs.75,09,460/- to the Profit & Loss Account against the TDS certificates showing receipt of Rs.78,35,166/-, thereby leading to lower offering of income to the tune of Rs.3,75,706/-. The ld. AR contended that the differential amount of Rs.3,25,706/- was, in fact, offered for taxation in the succeeding year which fact has not been taken care of by the AO.
As regards the second issue about the disallowance on account of late payment of EPF amounting to Rs.2,78,935/-, the ld. AR contended that though the amount was paid beyond the stipulated time under the EPF Act, but, such amount was paid well before the due date of filing return u/s 139(1) of the Act. We observe that there is no reference to these contentions of the assessee either in the order u/s 154 or in the impugned order. The assessee has made out a case that the proceedings u/s 154 were completed without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee and the same thing happened during the course of first appellate proceedings as well. Under these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the interest of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO. We order accordingly and direct the AO to decide these two issues afresh, as per law, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
The order pronounced in the open court on 05.01.2016.