M/S RANA IRON & POWER LTD.,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. DCIT, MUZAFFARNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3619/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 June 2023AY 2011-122 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s findings, noting the assessee's failure to furnish supporting details and evidence. The disallowance on account of delayed deposit of employees' PF contribution was upheld as per settled law.

What were the facts?

The assessee failed to appear before the ITAT on multiple occasions, and also before the CIT(A) after filing written submissions. The Revenue's representative supported the lower authorities' findings.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF due to delayed deposit is justified. Whether the assessee's failure to appear and provide evidence warrants dismissal of the appeal.

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 ‘B’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N.K.BILLAIYA & SH.ANUBHAV SHARMA

Hearing: 07.06.2023Pronounced: 07.06.2023

Per Anubhav Sharma, JM :

1.

As the case was called for hearing, non-appeared for the assessee and the record shows on 16.03.2022 non-appeared and thereafter notices have been issued and none has appeared for the assessee on four opportunities. No more notices are justified. Ld. DR was heard who supported the findings of Ld. Tax Authorities below.

2.

It can be appreciated that before Ld. CIT(A) after filing of written submission, none has appeared for the assessee. Ld. CIT(A) has considered the grounds of addition on the basis of material before him observing that the assessee had failed to furnish further details and evidences supporting the grounds. In regard to the disallowance on account of delay in deposit of employees contribution of PF u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act the law stands now settled in favour of the Revenue that on account of delay the expense cannot be allowed. Thus, giving thoughtful consideration to the matter on record and orders of Ld. Tax Authorities below, there appears to be no error in the findings of Ld. CIT(A). The appeal of assessee is dismissed.

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 →