MILTON PLYWOODS,KURUMATHUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, KANNUR, KANNUR

Shri Arun Raj S., Advocate represented the assessee and Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. DR represented Revenue.

It was submitted by the learned A.R. that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed by the learned CIT(A) by not considering the 2 M/s. Milton Plywoods arguments of the assessee. It was the submission that the AO had in the course of assessment disallowed the contribution to PF on the ground that the contribution exceeded 27% of the salary as debited to the P&L Account. It was further submitted that the deduction under PF was also to be considered in respect of the wages as quantified in Schedule 11 of the P&L Account. It was submitted that when this was submitted before the learned CIT(A), he refused to consider by holding that the claim ought to have been made before the AO with supporting evidence. It was the prayer that the issue may be restored to the AO for readjudication and the assessee would produce all the details before the AO.

In reply the learned D.R. vehemently supported the order of the learned CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer.

We have considered the rival contentions. As it has been specified by the assessee that wages have also to be considered when computing PF paid, so as to give an opportunity to both the sides, the assessee and Revenue, the assessee to produce evidence before the AO and the AO to examine the evidence, the issues in the appeal are restored to the file of the AO for readjudication.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.