TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 778X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sequential order dated 31.12.2009 contains a finding of fact that the amount had been deposited before filing of the ‘return’. Therefore we hold that CIT(A) has rightly interfered in the finding of the Assessing Officer. - Decided against revenue - I.T.A. No.2119/Mds/2011 - - - Dated:- 5-4-2013 - Dr. O.K. Narayanan, Vice-President Shri S.S. Godara, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in first round of litigation has wrongly accepted the assessee s appeal. 3. The assessee on the other side has supported the order of the CIT(A) and reasons contained therein. To Buttress the submissions, it relied on case law reported in (2010) 321 ITR 508 (Delhi) CIT Vs AIMIL Ltd and prayed for rejection of the Revenue s appeal. 4. The concise facts of the case are that the assessee com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was found entitled for the reliefs in question in view of the case law reported in 213 ITR 268 holding that payments made in respect of contribution towards Provident Fund etc., even before the due date of filing of return of income are allowable u/s 43B of the Act. However, for the purpose of verification, the issue was restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer. 6. In compliance, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heard both parties carefully and perused the case file and also judgement (supra) relied upon by the assessee. The question sought to be raised by the Revenue is that the assessee is not entitled for relief qua employees contribution amounting to ₹ 24,70,823/- since it had belatedly deposited the amount as per the respective statute. In our view, the plea is no more res interga as Hon'b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
