TMI Blog2014 (2) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct, regulation 31C of the ESI Regulations 1950 uses the word penalty, whereas regulation 31A is for simple interest on contribution due, but not paid in time - CIT(A) was right in law in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of interest on delayed payment of contribution to ESI. Deletion made u/s 43B of the Act Interest on sales tax Held that:- CIT(A) has deleted the addition representing interest on sales tax being prior period liability Relying upon Lakshmandass Mathuradas vs. CIT [1997 (12) TMI 16 - SUPREME Court] - the findings of the CIT(A) on the issue is on a right footing and does not call for any interference Decided against Revenue. Deletion made on employees' contribution to PF & ESI Allowability of dela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ainst the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-I, Kolkata in appeal no. 172/CIT(A)-I/Cir- 1/06-07 dated 30-09-2010 for the assessment year 2004-05. 2. Dr. Swetabh Suman, learned. CIT/Sr.DR represented on behalf of the revenue and Shri B.C.Jain, FCA,, learned AR represented on behalf of the assessee. 3. In the revenue's appeal in ITA No. 52/Kol/2011 for A.Y 2004-05, the revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- I) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld.CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,44,81,560/- made on account of liability for bonus pertains to assessment year 1997-98 1998-99 written back in the year of assessment when assessee did not file the return of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ces. 6) That the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld.CIT(Appeals) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.1,44,72,803/- made on account of CST by observing that the claim is allowable u/s. 43B on actual payment basis without appreciating the fact that there is nothing on record to show the amount was credited in the P L A/C and or forming part of business income. 4 In respect of ground no.1, it was submitted by the learned CIT/.DR that this issue was against the action of the ld.CIT(A) in allowing the liability for bonus debited in the P L A/c in the relevant assessment years. It was the submission that the liability for bonus pertained to the assessment years 1997-98 1998-99, for which assessment years the assessee ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed payment to ESI contribution fund was in the nature of penalty. It was the submission that the order of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue was liable to be reversed. He has vehemently supported the order of the AO. 8. In reply, the learned AR for the assessee has submitted that the interest paid on delayed payment towards ESI contribution fund was not penal in nature. It was the submission that there were provisions for levy of penalty under the ESI (General) Regulations, 1950. Such penalty had not been levied on the assessee. It was the submission that interest was chargeable u/s. 31-A of the ESI (General) Regulations Act, 1950. It was the submission that the ld.CIT(A) was right in holding that the interest was compensatory. He has supported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... akshmandass Mathuradas (refer to supra), we are of the view that the findings of the ld.CIT(A) on this issue is on a right footing and does not call for any interference. The same is hereby upheld. This ground of revenue's appeal stands dismissed. 13. In regard to ground no.4, it was submitted by the learned CIT/DR that this issue was against the action of the ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.98,26,543/- and Rs.27,61,088/- on account of delayed payment of the employees' contribution to PF/ESI respectively. He has vehemently supported the order of the AO. 14. In reply, the learned AR for the assessee has submitted that the contributions to ESI PF in respect of the employees' contribution have been paid before the due date of fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the view that the ld.CIT(A) was right in law in deleting the adhoc disallowance made by the AO. We uphold the same. This ground of revenue's appeal stands dismissed. 19. In regard to ground no.6, it was submitted by the ld.CIT/DR that this issue was against the action of the ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs.1,44,72,803/- made on account of CST[Central Sales Tax] by holding that the claim is allowable u/s.43B of the Act on actual payment basis. He has vehemently supported the order of the AO. 20. In reply, the learned AR for the assessee has supported the order of the ld.CIT(A). 21. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld.CIT(A) clearly shows that he has taken into consideration the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
