9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (11) TMI 506X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant : Shri Karan Shah, A.R. For the Respondent : Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Ahmedabad dated 16.06.2017 pertaining to A.Y. 2014-15 and for confirming the disallowance of ₹ 18,69,737/- made by the A.O. on account of delayed payment of Employees Contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC. 2. The facts of the case are that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacturing of Iron and Steel doors, Window, Door Frames, Pressed Steel products and other Steel Fabrications. 3. On perusal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 1,3 7,396/- 6. -do- 20/10/2013 06/11/2013 ₹ 1,28,762/- 7. -do- 20/11/2013 28/12/2013 ₹ 1, 38,2047- 8. -do- 20/12/2013 01/01/2014 ₹ 1,22,2607- 9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. -do- 21/06/2013 03/07/2013 ₹ 1 9,405/- 3. -do- 21/08/2013 07/09/2013 ₹ 1 9,885/- 4. -do- 21/09/2013 04/1072013 ₹ 1 9,325/- 5. -do- 21/10/2013 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 2,11,179/- In view of the above, the assessee vide notice u/s 142(1) dated 21.07.2016 was requested to explain as to why the disallowance of ₹ 18,69,737/- for the late payment of employees contribution of provided fund and ESI should not be made. 4. Thereafter assessee filed reply which was not tenable in the eyes of ld. A.O. and he made addition of ₹ 18,69,737/-. 5. Thereafter assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who confirmed the action of the A.O. 6. Now assessee has come before us by way of second appeal. 7. At the time of hearing ld. A.R. Shri Karan Shah fairly conceded that matter is agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
