9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 940X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... owance was made in assessment year 2009–10, which has been accepted by the assessee. In the impugned assessment year also, the factual position is no different. Except furnishing the name of some persons with amounts written against their names no other details or supporting evidence have been produced by the assessee to demonstrate advancement of money to the concerned persons. No supporting bills / vouchers have been produced either before the Departmental Authorities or before us. No reason to interfere with the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. - Decided against assessee. Delayed payment of employee’s contribution to P.F. - payment was not made within the due date as provided under Explanation–2 to section 36(1)(va) - Held that:- There is no dispute to the fact that such payments were made before the due date of filing of return of income for the impugned assessment year. That being the case, following the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in Hindustan Organics Ltd. v/s CIT, [2014 (7) TMI 477 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] we allow assessee’s claim of deduction Allowance of warranty expenditure claimed - contention of the assessee before us ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the assessee failed to furnish any details justifying its claim the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction claimed. Being aggrieved of the disallowance made, assessee preferred appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. In the course of hearing of appeal before the learned Commissioner (Appeals), the assessee produced supporting evidence to justify the deduction claimed. On the basis of evidence produced by the assessee, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to examine them and submit his report. After verifying the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) observed that in respect of impugned assessment year neither the assessee has submitted any supporting evidence to justify the claim nor has filed any rejoinder against the remand report. Accordingly, he confirmed the disallowance. 6. Learned Authorised Representative submitted before us, all the details relating to claim of bad debt was filed not only at the assessment stage but also before the first appellate authority and during the remand proceedings. In this context, he drew our attention to the party wise details of bad debt as enclose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority on independently examining the evidence brought on record and taking note of the fact that the Assessing Officer has not made any adverse comment in the remand report allowed assessee s claim of bad debt in assessment year 2009 10. On a perusal of submissions dated 16th April 2015, a copy of which is at Page 24 of the paper book, it is evident in Para 7.1 of the said submissions, the assessee has not only justified its claim of bad debt but has also furnished supporting evidence like party wise details of bad debt, amount written off, etc. When, on the basis of similar evidence the first appellate authority has allowed assessee s claim for the assessment year 2009 10, we fail to understand why it was not allowed for the impugned assessment year. Further, when the Assessing Officer has not offered any adverse comment with regard to claim of bad debt in the remand report, what further rejoinder was expected from the assessee. As it appears, the first appellate authority without properly applying his mind to the evidences brought on record has sustained the disallowance. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no disallowance is required to be made. Accordingly, we delete the ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etails or supporting evidence have been produced by the assessee to demonstrate advancement of money to the concerned persons. No supporting bills / vouchers have been produced either before the Departmental Authorities or before us. In view of the aforesaid, we do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on this issue. Ground no.2, is dismissed. 15. In ground no.3, the assessee has challenged disallowance of Rs. 52,329, towards delayed payment of employee s contribution to P.F. 16. Brief facts are, during the assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer noticing that employee s contribution to provident fund (P.F) amounting to Rs. 52,329, was not paid within the due date as per Explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Act disallowed the same. 17. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) also sustained the disallowance. 18. We have heard rival contentions and perused material on record. It is evident, the only reason for disallowance of payment made towards employee s contribution to P.F. is, such payment was not made within the due date as provided under Explanation 2 to section 36(1)(va) of the Act. However, there is no dispute t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ard rival contentions and perused material on record. It is the specific contention of the assessee before us that the disputed amount claimed as deduction in the impugned assessment year has been offered as income in the subsequent assessment year i.e., assessment year 2011 12. If the aforesaid claim of the assessee is correct, then, upholding of disallowance in the impugned assessment year would amount to addition of the same income in two assessment years, which in our view should not be made. Considering the aforesaid factual position, we direct the Assessing Officer to allow assessee s claim of deduction of provisions made for warranty expenses in the impugned assessment year subject to verification of the fact that the amount in question was offered as income in assessment year 2011 12. This ground is considered to be allowed for statistical purposes. 26. In ground no.2, Revenue has challenged the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in allowing the expenditure on consumables. 27. Brief facts are, during the assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer noticing that the assessee has debited an amount of Rs. 6,73,089, as consumable expenditure called for the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
