9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (11) TMI 776 - AT - Income TaxProvident fund and ESIC payments - delay in payment - Held that - Referring to scope of amendment to the proviso to section 43B made by the Finance Act, 2003 contribution to provident fund is to be allowed deduction if the said sum is actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date of filing of return as stipulated in section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act - See KWALITY MILK FOODS LIMITED. VERSUS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE - II (4). 2006 (3) TMI 262 - ITAT MADRAS-A . Since in the present case all contribution towards provident fund and ESI were made by the assessee on or before the due dates of the filing of the return of income. Thus, in view of amended provi sions of law the claim of the assessee is allow able - decided against revenue. Addition as interest income being not charged by the assessee on the loan advanced to Elixier Impex (P.) Ltd. - Held that - Finding of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) shows that the alleged account of Elixir Impex Pvt. Ltd. is a trade advance account and, therefore, the assessee was not liable to charge any interest on the same. Before us, the Revenue has utterly failed to bring any corroborative material on record to rebut the above finding of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). We, therefore, find no flaw in the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and accordingly confirm the same.- Decided against revenue.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals and cross-objections. 2. Non-prosecution of appeals by the assessee. 3. Various grounds of appeal by the Revenue related to disallowances and deductions under different sections of the Income-tax Act. Detailed Analysis: Condonation of Delay: The assessee's appeal in I.T.A. No. 413/Indore/2007 and cross-objections C.O. Nos. 75 and 76/Indore/2009 were barred by limitation. The assessee requested condonation of delay citing reasons for the delay, but the Departmental representative opposed the applications, arguing that each day's delay must be explained as per the Limitation Act. The tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Balwant Singh v. Jagdish Singh, which emphasized that "sufficient cause" should be applied liberally to advance substantial justice. However, the tribunal found that the reasons provided by the assessee did not constitute a reasonable and sufficient cause for condonation of the delay. Consequently, the appeal and cross-objections were dismissed as barred by limitation. Non-Prosecution of Appeals: The assessee's appeals in I.T.A. Nos. 262/Indore/2008 and 263/Indore/2008 were also dismissed for non-prosecution. Despite multiple adjournments and notices, the assessee failed to appear or make necessary arrangements for representation. The tribunal cited judicial precedents, including CIT v. B.N. Bhattachargee and Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT, to support the dismissal for non-prosecution, emphasizing that merely filing an appeal is not sufficient; effective prosecution is required. Revenue's Grounds of Appeal: The Revenue's appeals in I.T.A. Nos. 574/Indore/2002, 582/Indore/2003, and 683/Indore/2003 involved multiple grounds related to disallowances and deductions under sections 80-IA, 80HHC, and 43B of the Income-tax Act. The tribunal observed that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had adjudicated the issues in a general manner without specific findings or citations of relevant judgments. The tribunal directed the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to re-adjudicate the issues de novo, considering each aspect in detail and providing a speaking order. Consequently, these appeals were allowed for statistical purposes. Specific Grounds in Revenue's Appeals: 1. I.T.A. No. 574/Indore/2002 (A.Y. 1997-98): The grounds included deletion of disallowances related to DG set, lease rent, installation charges, deductions under sections 80-IA and 80HHC, and belated payments of provident fund and ESI contributions. 2. I.T.A. No. 682/Indore/2003 (A.Y. 1998-99): The grounds included deletion of additions related to bad debts, provident fund contributions, trading loss, interest on long-term loan, and export incentives. 3. I.T.A. No. 683/Indore/2003 (A.Y. 1999-2000): The grounds included deletion of disallowances related to deductions under sections 80-IA and 80HHC, interest on term loan, and export incentives. Revenue's Appeal I.T.A. No. 395/Indore/2007 (A.Y. 2003-04): The grounds involved: 1. Belated Payment of Provident Fund and ESI: The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had allowed the relief based on the retrospective application of the amendment to section 43B. The tribunal confirmed this finding as the Departmental representative could not controvert it. 2. Interest on Loan to Elixier Impex Pvt. Ltd.: The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had deleted the addition, considering the account as a trade advance account. The tribunal upheld this finding as the Revenue failed to provide corroborative material to rebut it. Conclusion: The appeals and cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed for being barred by limitation and non-prosecution. The Revenue's appeals were allowed for statistical purposes, directing the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) to re-adjudicate the issues de novo. The Revenue's appeal I.T.A. No. 395/Indore/2007 was dismissed, confirming the relief granted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). Order Pronounced: The order was pronounced in the open court on 27th June, 2018.
|
