TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 708X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - ITA No.1558/Hyd/2014 - - - Dated:- 4-8-2016 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member For Assessee : Shri A.V. Raghuram For Revenue : Shri A. Sitarama Rao, DR O R D E R Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M. This is assessee s appeal for the A.Y 2010-11 against the order of the CIT (A) dated 22.08.2014 confirming the disallowance and the addition made by the AO u/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessee has raised the following 7 grounds of appeal:- 1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law and also perverse in not following the judicial pronouncements. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in observing that the appellant has not responded to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rring to the facts of the case relied upon the facts of the assessee case. 7. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing . 2. Grounds No.1 7 are general in nature and need no adjudication. 3. As regards Grounds No.2 3, the assessee s contention is that the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity of hearing during the remand proceedings to present his case. However, while going through the order of the CIT (A), we find that the assessee was given several opportunities to explain his case and also to produce relevant parties to prove the investment made by them in the assessee company. However, the assessee could not produce the same. In view of the same, we do not find any merit in the grounds raised by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he total income and brought it to tax. Further, he also observed that the assessee company, during the course of assessment proceedings, submitted that it has paid P.F contribution to the employees belatedly for the months of June to September, October, December 2009 and upto February, 2010, amounting to ₹ 3,48,344. Since the same was paid well beyond the due date, the AO added it also to the total income of the assessee. On similar ground, an addition of ₹ 33,463 being belated ESI payment was also brought to tax. AO also perused the schedules forming part of the balance sheet as on 31.03.2010 and observed that the company has received State Investment Subsidy of ₹ 10.00 lakhs. Assessee was asked to furnish the details of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt A.Y. This is evident from the balance sheet as on 31.03.2010 at page 76 of the paper book wherein the closing balance of share application as on 31.03.2010 was ₹ 3,50,005. Further, we also find that the amount mentioned against respective parties did not match the figures taken by the CIT (A). In view of the same, we remand this issue to the file of the AO for re-verification of the facts. If it is found that these share application money was received by the assessee in financial year 2009-10, only then can the same be brought to tax in the relevant A.Y i.e. A.Y 2010-11. With these directions, Ground No.4 is remanded to the file of the AO. 7. As regards disallowance of contributions of the employees towards ESI PF, we find tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... we find that the Tribunal at Paras 11 12 of its order, has held as under: 11. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the record. In our considered opinion, even after insertion of Expln. 10 to s. 43(1) of the Act, the basic principle underlying in the decision of the apex Court in the case of P.J. Chemicals Ltd. (supra) still holds the field. Their Lordships analyzed the expression met directly or indirectly to come to the conclusion that only in a case where a subsidy or other grant was given to offset the cost of an asset, such payment/ grant would fall within the expression 'met', whereas the subsidy received merely to accelerate the industrial development of the State cannot be considered as paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
