9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 446X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our of the assessee - Thus we allow the remaining 50% claim of additional depreciation at Rs.57,84,200/- made by the assessee. Thus, finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reversed. Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. Disallowance of employees contribution towards PF ESI - HELD THAT:- We find that recently in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd.[ 2022 (10) TMI 617 - SUPREME COURT] has settled the issue holding that if the employees contribution towards PF ESI is not deposited by the employer before the due date as prescribed under the relevant Act governing PF ESI then strict compliance has to be made with regard to sec. 36(1)(va) of the Act read with section 2(24) of the Act and such sum shall be treated as income of the employer and Hon ble Court further held that for such employees contribution provision of section 43B of the Act cannot be applied. Since in the instant case the alleged sum has been deposited after the due date prescribed under the PF Act, we fail to find any merit in the ground raised by the assessee and confirm the finding of Ld. CIT(A) disallowing the sum - Ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. Claim of deduction u/s. 80JJAA - AO only allowe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ID-19 restrictions. We, therefore, in view of the judgment of The Hon 'ble Supreme Court vide Miscellaneous Application No. 21 of 2022 find that the limitation period in filing appeal between 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 has been excluded for calculating the limitation period. Since the period of limitation in the case of the assessee falls during this period, the same deserves to be extended and we, therefore, condone the impugned delay 1146and 699 days and admit the appeal(s) for adjudication. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal for the assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively:- AY 2013-14 1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - 2, Kolkata (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A) erred in framing an ex parte order. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have passed an exparte order. 2. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in making an aggregate disallowance of a sum of Rs 67,31,165 under section 80JJAA of the Act, being the deduction of employee cost pertaining to income-tax assessment years 2011-12 (Rs 19,27,393) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a sum of Rs 96,66,047 under section 80JJAA of the Act, being the deduction of employee cost pertaining to income-tax assessment years 2012-13 (Rs 48,03,772) and 2013-14 (Rs 48,62,275) claimed by the appellants. The appellants contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in making impugned disallowance inasmuch as the CIT(A) has not correctly appreciated the provisions of section 80JJAA and the facts of the case in its entirety. The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the impugned disallowance inasmuch as the reasons given by the Assessing Officer is merely that, serial nos 11 and 12 are mentioned in the annexure to Form no 10DA issued by the Chartered Accountant whereas the proforma for annexure to Form no 10DA does not mention such serial nos and no other reason is given by the Assessing Officer, as such, the impugned disallowance is unwarranted. The appellants further, contend that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the action of the Assessing Officer in not allowing credit of minimum alternate tax of Rs 1,11,94,855 claimed per return of income inasmuch as the same is not in accordance with the prescription of the provisions of section 115JAA of the Act. The appellants crave leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of appeal. 4. Facts in brief are that the assessee is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing of different types of fabrics, laces, Narrow Woven Tapes, Crimped Yarn, Inner and outer wear etc. and other textile products. Return of income for AY 2013-14 was filed on 28.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.5,16,84,070/- which was subsequently revised on 30.12.2013 declaring income at Rs.4,52,67,150/-. Return for AY 2014-15 was filed through e-filing on 30.09.2014 declaring an income of Rs.12,41,63,610/-. Assessee claimed deduction u/s. 80JJAA of the Act in respect of both the years. Case was selected for scrutiny through CASS followed by serving of valid notice u/s. 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act.. The Ld. AO after considering the submissions of the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any relief by Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that second proviso inserted in section 32(1) of the Act effective from 01.04.2016 is held to be curative in nature by various judicial forums. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of National Engineering Industrial Ltd. 135 Taxmann.com 193. 8. On the other hand, Ld. DR supported the order of Ld. CIT(A). 9. We have heard rival submissions and carefully gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Assessee s claim for balance 50% of additional depreciation during AY 2014-15 is in challenge before us which was charged on the assets purchased during AY 2013-14 and put to use for less than 180 days. 50% of the Additional depreciation was charged in AY 2013-14 and the remaining 50% has been claimed for AY 2014-15. We find that similar issue came up for adjudication before this Tribunal in the case of National Engineering Industrial Ltd. (supra) and the issue was decided in favour of the assessee by this Tribunal observing as follows: 7. We do not find any force in the above contention of the Ld. DR. We find that the amended provision of section 32( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, we allow the remaining 50% claim of additional depreciation at Rs.57,84,200/- made by the assessee. Thus, finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reversed. Ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed. 11. Now, we take up ground no. 5 raised by assessee for AY 2014-15 through which disallowance of employees contribution towards PF ESI at Rs.9,26,938/- is challenged. Two, uncontroverted facts are that firstly, the alleged sum was deposited after the due date as prescribed under the Act governing the Provident fund and secondly, the said sum was deposited before the due date of filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. We find that recently Hon ble Supreme Court in Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (2022) 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC) dated 12.10.2022 has settled the issue holding that if the employees contribution towards PF ESI is not deposited by the employer before the due date as prescribed under the relevant Act governing PF ESI then strict compliance has to be made with regard to sec. 36(1)(va) of the Act read with section 2(24) of the Act and such sum shall be treated as income of the employer and Hon ble Court further held that for such employees contribution p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Act where the gross total income of an assessee includes any profits and gains derived from the manufacture of goods in a factory, there shall, subject to the conditions specified in sub-section (2), be allowed a deduction of an amount equal to thirty per cent of additional wages paid to the new regular workmen employed by the assessee in such factory, in the previous year, for three assessment years including the assessment year relevant in the preivous year in which such employment is provided. 17. In the case of assessee for AY 2013-14 deduction of Rs.1,15,93,440/- claimed u/s. 80JJAA of the Act comprised of following three amounts:- Assessment year Amount 2011-12 Rs. 19,27,393/- 2012-13 Rs.48,03,772/- 2013-14 Rs.48,62,275/- Total : Rs.1,15,93,440/- 18. As regards the Assessment Year 2014-15, deduction of Rs.2,02,53,323/- claimed by the assessee u/s. 80JJAA of the Act comprised of the following: Assessment year Amount ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
