SPL INDUSTRIES LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2829/DEL/2022Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 July 2023AY 2018-193 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional evidence, finding it relevant and going to the root of the matter. Consequently, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee sought to file additional evidence before the ITAT, which was crucial for their appeal regarding a disallowance under Section 36(1)(va). The evidence pertained to the timely payment of employee's contribution to provident fund and ESI.

What were the issues?

Whether additional evidence, crucial for the appeal, should be admitted by the Tribunal. The relevance of this evidence to the disallowance of employee's contribution to provident fund and ESI.

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, DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv, Adv Sh. Shrey Jain, Adv
Hearing: 11/05/2023Pronounced: 14/07/2023

O R D E R

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 25.10.2022 for AY 2018-19.

Application of assessee under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Rules, 1963 2. The ld counsel of assessee submitted that the assessee seeks to file some additional evidence which is crucial for adjudication of assessee’s appeal and goes to the root of the matter, therefore, the assessee may kindly be allowed to submit additional evidence now for the first time before the Tribunal. In the application, it has been stated that as the assessee was not aware of the significance of these evidences at that point of time and it was only when the assessee contacted Dr. Rakesh Gupta for representing the appeal the assessee realized the importance of these evidence and their relevance to the grievance of the assessee. Therefore, the additional evidence may kindly be admitted for consideration and adjudication of the appeal of the assessee.

3.

The ld Sr. DR opposed to the admission of the additional evidence however, he did not controvert that the additional evidence sought to be admitted by the assessee are relevant to the grievance of the assessee and goes to the root of the matter.

4.

On careful consideration of the above submissions, I note that the present case pertains to upholding of disallowance made by the AO u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act wherein, the assessee seeks to establish that there was no delay on the part of the assessee in payment of employee’s contribution to provident fund and ESI. From the application under consideration, I note that the assessee wants to submit copy of screen shot of the website of EPF Challan Portal showing due date for remittance of EPF for the May 2017, copy of e-mail sent by the assessee to EPF department which are relevant for the adjudication of the grievance of the assessee. Therefore, additional evidence submitted by the assessee is admitted for consideration. Application of the assessee is allowed.

5.

Since, in the earlier part of this order, I have admitted additional evidence of the assessee which are for the first time produced before the Tribunal, therefore, after admission of additional evidence the matter is restored back to the file of the AO for framing afresh assessment order after taking into consideration the additional evidence and explanation of the assessee and after allowing due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Needless to say that the AO shall reframe the assessment order without being influenced with the earlier assessment order and first appellate order.

6.

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

Order pronounced in the open court on 14/07/2023.

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 →