9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner has submitted, the reasons disclosed by the authorities for invoking Section 147 of the Act of 1961, are specious. It is in the nature of the assessing officer reviewing an order of assessment. Review of an order of assessment by the assessing officer is not permissible under Section 147 of the Act of 1961. He submits that, the assessing officer is not entitled to change his views from that expressed in the order of assessment under Section 147 of the Act, 1961. The petitioner, as employer had time to deposit of employees' portion of the Provident Fund within the time limit for the purpose of filing the Income Tax Return. Such due date has been fixed with retrospective effect by incorporating necessary amendments in Section 43 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... missioner of Income-Tax v. Alom Extrusions Ltd.) in support of his contentions. Learned Advocate appearing for the revenue has submitted that, the department has given reasons for invoking the provisions of section 147 of the Act of 1961. There is a delay in payment of the employee's portion of the Provident Fund by the petitioner. The delay in payment disentitles the petitioner from claiming allowance under Section 43 (B) of the Act, 1961. This aspect of the assessment was overlooked by the assessing officer bona fide. Therefore, the assessing officer was within his rights to invoke Section 147 of the Act of 1961 since, income assessable to tax had escaped assessment. Moreover, the petitioner was aggrieved by the order of assessment and h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing to the petitioner, in view of the provisions of Section 2(24)(x), 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Act of 1961, the assessing officer had accepted the contentions of the petitioners that, no addition and/or disallowance should be made in respect of such amount. On December 23, 2009, an assessment order was passed by the assessing officer under Section 143(3) of the Act of 1961. The assessment order does not allude to the deposit of Employee's Provident Fund for the month of June 2006 in August 2006. According to the petitioners, their contentions were accepted by the assessing officer in view of the assessing officer not alluding to such aspect. The petitioners, however, had preferred an appeal therefrom being aggrieved by the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made beyond the stipulated period, if they are paid by the assessee on or before the due date of furnishing the return under Section 139(1) of the Act of 1961. Amendment to Section 43B of the Act of 1961 was held to have retrospective effect. This view has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra). In M/s. Vijay Shree Limited (supra) has held that, the deletion of amount paid on account of employee's contribution beyond the due date was deductable by invoking the amended provisions of Section 43B of the Act of 1961. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (supra) has been followed therein. In the facts of present case, the employee's portion of the provident fund was paid on August 8, 2006. It was paid within the due date for filing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
