Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2019 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 128 - AT - Income TaxDisallowance u/s.2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) - late payment of employee’s contribution to PF - HELD THAT:- the instant case, it is not in dispute that the contribution to EPF was deposited by the assessee before due date of filing the return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act. Although the CBDT Circular No.22/2015 dated 17.12.2015 provides that the deduction relating to employee’s contribution to welfare fund are governed by section 36(1)(va) of the Act as relied by the ld D.R. As relied upon M/S. BHARAT HOTELS LTD. [2018 (9) TMI 798 - DELHI HIGH COURT] the issue is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to examine the contributions made with reference to the dates when they were actually made and grant relief to such of claim which qualified for such relief in terms of prevailing provisions of the Act. We clearly obverse that the assessee would be entitled to deductions in terms of section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Accordingly, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes. Addition to the extent of 10% by the CIT(A) in respect of repairs and maintenance, travelling, conveyance and demonstration charges and carriage inward expenses - main reason of disallowance by the authorities below that no third party bills are available and all the vouchers are self made - HELD THAT:- A.R. could not furnish any external vouchers in support of the claim. On bare perusal of the assessment order, it was clearly discernible that the payments were made by other parties on behalf of the assessee and only credit notes are issued and, therefore, the genuineness of the expenses could not be verified and most of the vouchers are self made. However, the Assessing Officer has not pointed out any specific defects in the bills and vouchers. However, the CIT(A) after taking into consideration all these aspects and also considering that the disallowance is excessive, reduced to 10% of the total expenses claimed by the assessee. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) in restricting the disallowance to 10% is fair and reasonable and need not be interfered with Addition under the head 'Electricity charges' - HELD THAT:- It is also not disputed that there is no agreement between the assessee and Protection Manufacturing Private Limited for sharing the electricity. During the assessment years under consideration, the auditor of the assessee has certified that there is no manufacturing activity undertaken by the assessee, however, the claim of electricity expenses seems to be excessive. Although the claim of the assessee that the same is business expenditure and fully verifiable duly supported by documents but neither before the authorities below nor before us, could furnish any positive material on record to substantiate the claim. In view of above, we find no infirmity in the orders of lower authorities to interfere. Hence, this ground of appeal is dismissed.
|