SH. BIJENDER SINGH,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1548/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 January 2016AY 2006-074 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee's contentions regarding the differential amount being offered in the succeeding year and the EPF payment being made before the due date of filing the return were not considered. The proceedings were completed without adequate opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns additions made for the assessment year 2006-07. The additions relate to a difference between amounts credited to the Profit & Loss Account and TDS certificates, and late payment of employees' Provident Fund contribution.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO properly considered the assessee's submissions regarding the timing of income offering and EPF payment, and whether adequate opportunity was provided to the assessee during proceedings.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 154,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : SMC-II : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Rohila, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri K.K. Jaiswal, DR
Hearing: 04.01.2016Pronounced: 05.01.2016

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.

2.

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.

3.

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.

4.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order pronounced in the open court on 05.01.2016.

More judgments on Section 154

All 8,676 judgments and leading authorities on Section 154 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →