9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1366X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld. CIT(A) was not expected to ignore the admitted facts as recorded in the assessment order. Decided in favor of assessee. - ITA No. 679/JP/2018 - - - Dated:- 23-8-2018 - SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM For The Assessee : Shri Mahendra Balani (CA) For The Revenue : Smt. Roshanta Meena (JCIT) ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J . M . This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28/02/2018 of ld. CIT(A), Alwar for the A. Y. 2014-15. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1 . The on the facts and circumstances of case and in Law CIT (A) has erred in maintaining the addition to the extent of Rs . 293231 . 00 on account of del ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom April 1, 2004 . 4 . The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, or withdraw any of the ground of appeal at the time of hearing . 2. We have heard the ld. A. R. of the assessee as well as the ld. DR and considered the relevant material on record. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that as per audit report, the assessee has paid P. F. contribution and ESI to the employees after due date of prescribed limit under the respective Act. The Assessing Officer has given the details of the payments made by the assessee in respect of the PF and ESI contribution at page 2 and 3 of the assessment order as under: ESI S. No. Month ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 12. August, 2013 4186 21/09/2013 19/11/2013 13. September, 2013 5991 21/10/2013 20/12/2013 14. September, 2013 4074 21/10/2013 20/12/2013 15. October, 2013 5891 21/11/2013 28/01/2014 16. November, 2013 4125 21/12/2013 21/01/2014 17. November, 2013 5964 21/12/2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3 3. November, 2013 40815/- 20/12/2013 26/12/2013 4. December, 2013 40206/- 21/01/2014 29/01/2014 Total 169854/- Thus, it is clear that the payments were made by the assessee before due date of filing the return of income U/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act), however, due to the reason that the payments were made not made within the period stipulated as per EPF scheme and ESI Act. Therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed the said amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the ld. CIT(A) has given the reason for upholding the disallowances that no proof of deposit was produced by the assessee whereas the Assessing Officer itself has not disputed the factual position of making the payments by the assessee as reproduced in the assessment order and quoted in the foregoing paragraph of this order. Hence, even if there was no appearance by the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) and the appeal was decided on merits then the ld. CIT(A) was not expected to ignore the admitted facts as recorded in the assessment order. Accordingly, in view of the various decisions of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur, 363 ITR 70 (Raj) as well as CIT Vs. JVVNL (supra), we set aside th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
