TMI Blog2019 (10) TMI 988X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat assessee claimed that the Employees Contribution was deposited before the due date on filing of return. Therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the facts about the deposits of Employees Contribution, if the same was deposited before the due date and grant relief to the assessee by following the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in Ghatge Patil Transporters Ltd. [ 2014 (10) TMI 402 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - ITA No. 4789/Mum/2016, ITA No. 4790/Mum/2016 - - - Dated:- 1-10-2019 - Shri R.C. Sharma, Accountant Member And Shri Pawan Singh Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Ajay R. Singh (AR) For the Respondent : Shri Chaudhary Arun Kumar Singh (DR) ORDER UNDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lant. 1.4 The Ld. Comm. of Income Tax (Appeal)- 10 Mumbai, has erred in law and in facts in not appreciating the contention and submission of the assessee that the AO ought to compute the correct income of the assessee. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of interior designing and turnkey projects contracts, filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2007-08 on 31.10.2007 declaring income of ₹ 76,19,992/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed on 28.07.2009 under section 143(3) determining the total income of ₹ 79,85,880/-. The Assessing Officer made the disallowance on travelling expenses of ₹ 1,32,437/- and disal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... We have considered the submission of both the parties and perused the material available on record. The Assessing Officer made disallowance under section 43B by taking view that Gujarat VAT of ₹ 2,33,446/- was not paid as per the provisions of section 43B and disallowed accordingly. The application filed by assessee under section 154 was also rejected by the Assessing Officer. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer by taking view that the amount was shown in the books of assessee as collected but not paid to Gujarat VAT authority. The Auditor has clearly pointed out this fact in its report. Therefore, there was no mistake in the order of Assessing Officer. Before us, the ld. AR of the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the assessee that on reversal of the service tax in the books of account, no service tax remain payable and as such disallowance made in respect of unpaid service tax liability u/s 43B in earlier year is deductible 2.1 The Ld. Comm of Income Tax (Appeal)- 10 Mumbai, has erred in upholding the action of the AO in not allowing the deduction of disallowance wrongly made by the assessee in respect of employees contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC in the computation of income. 2.2 Reasons assigned by him for confirming the disallowance of deduction claimed by the assessee are wrong and insufficient. 2.3 The Ld. Comm of Income Tax (Appeal)- 10 Mumbai, has erred in law and in facts in not appreci ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ile of Assessing Officer, accordingly the issue for the year under consideration may also be restored to the file of Assessing Officer. 10. On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue supported the order of lower authorities. 11. We have considered the submission of both the parties and found that we have restored the similar issue to the file of Assessing Officer for verification of reconciliation. Therefore, this ground is restored to the file of Assessing Officer to verify the fact and grant appropriate relief to the assessee in accordance with law. 12. In the result, Ground No.1 of this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose. 13. Ground No.2 relates to disallowance of ESI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
