TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (8) TMI 1093
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance made by the ld. AO on account of interest on late deposit of TDS of Rs. 27,840/-. 3. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in partially confirming the disallowance of Rs 42,231/-, out of total disallowance of Rs. 95,844/- made by the ld. AO by considering the same as prior period expenses. 4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the additions made by the ld. AO of Rs. 9,95,237/- being difference between the receipts shown in books of accounts and as appearing in 26AS. 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,38,618/-made by applying the provisions of section 40(a) (ia). 6. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance in respect of bad debts written off to the extent of Rs. 3,79,191/- as against the total bad debts written off of Rs. 17.88 lakhs. 7. The assessee craves right to add, alter or amend any of the grounds of appeal." 3. In ITA No. 689-JP-2018 (for A.Y 2014-15), the assessee has taken following grounds in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch remains unpaid. The appellant added back Rs 2,20,365 in its income while computing taxable income. It was submitted that this process of accounting is followed every year and unpaid liability will go on increasing every year. The computation of income was filed during the present proceedings and the same shows that leave encashment provision of Rs. 2,20,365/- has been added back. However, the correct unpaid liability after the actual payment made is Rs 4,88,035/-and the same is covered under section 43B, since the appellant has already added back Rs 2,20,365/-, the addition of the balance amount is confirmed. Ground of appeal is dismissed." 5.1 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee explained that additions sustained by the lower authorities are not correct and the assessee has already disallowed the amount debited to the profit and loss account and not paid before due date of filing of return of income and therefore, there is no separate sum of Rs. 2,67,670/- required to be disallowed. 5.2 We have gone through the records and contentions raised before us. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted in his paper book that the provision made in this account is explai....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....6.1 On this issue the ld. CIT(A) has recorded his findings at para 4.3 and contended that interest on delayed payment of TDS is not allowable expenditure. For this contention he has relied upon the decision reported at 32 taxmann.com 254 (Chennai Tribunal) ACIT Vs. SRA Systems Ltd. The fact that case is related to the delay in payment of dividend tax deducted by the company where as the fact of the case on hand is related to the tax deducted for the payment made for expenditure of the company and thus, the facts are different. 6.2 Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the findings of the lower authorities in the matter. 6.3 We have gone through the arguments raised before us by both the parties based on the material placed on record. Looking to the fact that interest paid by the assessee is not of tax liability of his income and the interest paid by them is compensatory in nature and therefore, the same is required to be allowed. For this contention the ld. AR relied upon the recent decision of division bench of ITAT Mumbai in the case of Resolve Salvage & Fire India (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA No. 841/Mum/2019 where in the coordinate bench observed that The issue of delay in the pay....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ecision of the co-ordinate bench, we hold that the interest paid on delayed payment of TDS u/s 201(1A) is an allowable deduction. We direct accordingly. Assessee succeeds in its appeal. Respectfully following with the said findings of the co-ordinate bench decision we allow the ground no. 2 raised by the assessee and thus, we vacate the disallowance of Rs. 27,840/-. 7. The Ground No. 3 raised by the assessee is for partially confirming the disallowance of Rs.42,231/- out of total disallowance of Rs. 95,844/- considering the same as prior period expenses. The ld. AR appearing on the behalf of the assessee submitted that while confirming the disallowance by the ld. CIT(A) there is no direction in the ld. CIT(A)'s order that the balance amount incurred by the assessee if not allowable in this year, then the same is required to be allowed in the year for which year the expenditure incurred are pertains. Looking to the fact and circumstances of the case since the assessee has already incurred expenditure and the assessee being private company same is finalized in the year under consideration the same is required to be allowed in the year in which the same is finalized and debited in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... said copy of account, e-mail correspondence and reconciliation statement were duly furnished before before the CIT(A) alongwith application for admission evidence under Rule 46A dtd. 222/11/2017. The copy of the same is enclosed in the Paper Book II (submitted on 06.06.2022) at page 120. The reference of the same was also made in written submission placed at page 118-119 of the said paper book. * Hon'ble High Court of Madras in case of Sh. Dilip Kumar vs. ACIT [2019] 111 taxmann.com 52 held that Assessee submitted additional evidence of lorry expenses for first time before Commissioner (Appeals), who remanded matter to Assessing Officer for verification but he did not go into these evidences, matter was to be remanded for readjudication. * Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Chandra Kant ChanuBhai Patel v. CIT [2011] (13 taxmann.com 131) held that where fresh evidence produced by produced by appellant was without any blemish, then in order to advance cause of justice, evidence was to be admitted. * Hon'ble Delhi ITAT in the case of Jai Prakash Tyagi v.. ITO (2016) (72 taxmann.com 183) held that where in course of appellate proceedings, assessee produced a val....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n case of Braganza Construction (P.) Ltd vs. ACIT [2020] 116 taxmann.com 11 held that Where Tribunal had treated certain amount expended by assessee as unexplained expenditure and it had not even considered assessee's application seeking leave to produce additionalevidence at stage of appeal, Tribunal was to be directed to consider assessee's application and thereafter decide appeal. We may further submit that this additional evidence goes to the rootof the matter and is necessary to examine the issue. Thus, it is requested to admit the same in the interest of natural justice under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963." 8.1 Per contra, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the addition is required to be sustained based on the findings given by the ld. CIT(A) and the additional evidence application is not sustainable. 8.2 We have gone through facts of the case and submission made by the ld. AR of the assessee. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted the reasons as to why the receipt shown in 26AS and in the books of accounts are at different figure. The assessee company is engaged in the health care and heals the patient and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....igure of each patient amount written off. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we deem it feet that to set aside this issue before the ld. Jurisdictional assessing officer with a direction that this issue may be decided on merits after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard in the matter. Thus, this ground no 6 of the appeal is also allowed for statistical purposes. 11. The Ground no. 7 being the general ground did not require any adjudication as the assessee has not added, altered or amended any grounds of appeal. 12. Now, we deal with the appeal of the assessee for A. Y. 2014- 15 in ITA No. 689-JP-2018. The ground no. 2, 3 and 5 raised in this appeal is similar to the ground no. 3, 1, & 7 respectively raised in ITA No. 688-JP-2018 as the facts and circumstance being similar and we have heard both the parties and persuaded the materials available on record. The bench has noticed that the issues raised by the assessee in this appeal No. 689/JP/2018 is equally similar on set of facts and grounds. Therefore, it is not imperative to repeat the facts and various grounds raised by both the parties and bench feels that the decision taken by us in ITA No. 688/JPR/2018....