9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 560X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 40a(ii) of the Act. We further find that Hon ble High Court while arriving at the aforesaid conclusion had also considered the CBDT Circular No. F. No. 91/58/66-ITJ(19), dated 18.05.1967. Revenue has not placed any contrary binding decision in its support. In such situation, we, relying on the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sesa Goa (supra) hold that the AO was not justified in disallowing the amount of cess paid on income tax. We therefore, direct its deletion. Thus, ground of appeal of the assessee is allowed. - ITA No.2561/Del/2017 - - - Dated:- 27-7-2020 - Sh. Anil Chaturvedi, Accountant Member And Ms Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Salil Agarwal, Adv., Shri Sailesh Gupta, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. That the Ld CIT(A) has further erred both in law and on facts in sustaining the initiation of the proceedings under section 147 of the Act and, further completion of assessment under section 143(3)/147 of the Act without satisfying the statutory preconditions for initiation of the proceedings and, completion of assessment under the Act. 3. 2.1 That further, the reason record were mere reasons to suspect and were just to make finishing and roving enquiries and were a mere change of opinion without there being any tangible material coming to the fore of the assessing officer after scrutiny assessment and as such the proceedings initiated under section 148 was a mere pretence. 4. That the Learned CIT(A) has gone wrong in disall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT(A) deleted the addition made on account of provision made for doubtful debt but however upheld the action of AO with respect to the addition on account of education cess on income tax. The assessee is therefore, now before us. 6. Before us, at the outset, Learned AR pointing to the grounds of appeal submitted that Ground No.1 is general and therefore requires no adjudication. He submitted that in Ground Nos. 2 3 Assessee is challenging the reassessment proceedings and in Ground No.4 Assessee is challenging the disallowance of ₹ 14,21,208/- on account of cess on income tax. He submitted if the ground on the merits of addition of ₹ 14,21,208/- is decided in favour of the Assessee, then the grounds raised by Assessee chall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction while computing income chargeable under the head of profits and gains of business or profession . He therefore, submitted that on merits the addition is not called for. Learned DR on the other hand did not controvert the submissions made by the Learned AR but however supported the order of lower authorities. 9. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials available on record. The issue in the present ground is with respect to disallowance of ₹ 14,21,208/- u/s 40a(ii) of the Act. It is AO s contention that the aforesaid amount is towards the cess on income tax and is not allowable u/s 40a(ii) of the Act. We find that Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sesa Goa Ltd. (supra) has held that educati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
