9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (1) TMI 591X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the revenue to submit that 50% had been allowed without any basis. He, however, could not substantiate the said plea - In favour of assessee Addition on account of late deposit of PF & ESI – Held that:- Following the decision in case of Alom Extrusions Limited (2009 (11) TMI 27 - SUPREME COURT) wherein it has been held that Second Proviso to Section 43B of the Act omitted by Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1.4.2004 was clarificatory in nature and was to operate retrospectively. CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition made by the A.O. u/s 36(1)(va) and u/s 43B on account of late payment of employee's as well as employer's contribution to PF & ESI as the same had been deposited prior to the filing of the return u/s 139 (1) - In favo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to PF ESI without appreciating the fact that payment was not made by the assessee within the prescribed due date by which the assessee was required to make payment? 2. Put shortly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present appeal as narrated therein are that the assessee filed its return for the assessment year 2001-02 on 11.3.2004 declaring an income of Rs. 5,41,760/-. The assessment in this case was completed vide order dated 11.3.2004 at an income of Rs. 26,02,640/-. Against the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short the CIT(A) ] who vide order dated 8.8.2005 partly allowed the appeal and deleted the following additions made by the Assessing Officer:- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... In the present case, on appreciation of evidence, it was recorded by the CIT(A) and affirmed by the Tribunal that it was 50% which was reasonable and was to be allowed as revenue expenditure. An effort was made by the learned counsel for the revenue to submit that 50% had been allowed without any basis. He, however, could not substantiate the said plea. Accordingly, question (A) is answered against the revenue and in favour of the assessee. 6. Adverting to question (B), learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute that the issue raised herein finally stands settled by the Apex Court judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [2009] 319 ITR 306 (SC) and decision of this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 663 of 2005 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
