TMI Blog2010 (7) TMI 978X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. Addition of ₹ 1,10,606/- on account of belated payment of Provident Fund account; 3. At the time of hearing, it is submitted by the learned counsel that this issue is covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. P.M.Electronics Ltd., (2008) 220 CTR 635 (Delhi) wherein the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has discussed in para-4 as under:- 4. On 27th Nov., 1998 the assessee had filed a return of income declaring a loss of ₹ 8,92,888. On 11th May, 1999 the return was processed under s. 143(1)(a) of the Act. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. Accordingly, a notice dt. 27th Sept., 1999 under s. 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee. In response to the noti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... upra) and Vinay Cement (supra) as well as a contrary view of the Division Bench of its own Court in Synergy Financial Exchange (supra). The Division Bench of the Madras High Court has explained the effect of the dismissal of a special leave petition by a speaking order by relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed Ors.Vs. State of Kerala Anr. (2000) 162 CTR (SC) 97: 119 STC 505 at p. 526 in para 40 and noted the following observations : If the order refusing leave to appeal is a speaking order, i.e., gives reasons for refusing the grant of leave, then the order has two implications. Firstly, the statement of law contained in the order is a declaration of law by the Supreme Court within the meaning of A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... these circumstances indicated above, we are of the opinion that no substantial question of law arises for our consideration in the present appeal. The appeal is, thus, dismissed. 4. The learned DR has not controverted to the above authorities of the superior courts on the issue under consideration.. 5. We find that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of P.M. Electronics Ltd. (supra) has decided this issue of payment of Employees contribution towards Provident Fund after considering the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vinay Cement (supra) and also distinguished the case law referred by the Ld. DR of Bombay High Court in Pamwi Tissues Ltd. (supra). Even now this issue has been considered by Hon ble Apex Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CIT(A), which we uphold, and this ground of the Revenue is dismissed. 8. The third ground of the Revenue s appeal reads as under: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld.CIT(A), Valsad had erred in deleting the following additions: 3. Addition of ₹ 42,515/- out of travelling expenses of ₹ 2,12,573/- being personal and non-business in nature; 9. At the time of hearing before us, the learned DR has stated that the travelling expenses of ₹ 42,515/- was not genuine and not supported by good evidences. It is further stated that the Section 37 mandates only the expenses relating to the business activities and not the personal expenses. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in allowing the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is stated that it is settled position of the law that the onus is on the assessee to prove the genuineness of such credit. Therefore, the AO was justified in making addition of ₹ 12,19,246/-. 13. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the other hand, stated that the AO made the addition of ₹ 12,19,246/- on the only ground that the creditors have become more than three years old. He has stated that the assessee company suffered loss in various years and therefore because of bad financial conditions could not make the payment to the creditors. But the assessee still owes the liability and none of the creditors has waived the amount receivable by them. That the AO has not mentioned the section under which the addition is made. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ontemplated by the section. (emphasis is added) Thus, Their Lordships of the Apex Court held that on expiry of period of limitation, prescribed under the Limitation Act, does not extinguish the debt but only prevent the creditor from enforcing the debt. In the case of the assessee, though the period of limitation has expired that itself will not extinguish the debt. Admittedly, there is no remission or cessation of the liability from the creditors. It is also stated by the learned counsel that the assessee still owes the liability and it could not pay the same due to bad financial condition. From the order of the CIT(A) we also find that the assessee is a sick company under the BIFR. 15. In view of the above, we are of the opinion th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
