9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 2057X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in framing assessment u/s 153A despite the fact that no incriminating material was found during the course of search. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) gravely erred in holding that the assessment framed by the Ld. Assessing Officer was not beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. 3. That Ld. CIT(A) was not justified to arbitrarily uphold the addition made at Rs. 39,70,08,480/- representing proceeds of GDR issued by the appellant as unexplained credit by resort to provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 4. That Ld. CIT(A) has relied on a lot of irrelevant data marshalled by the Ld. Assessing Officer while upholding the above mentioned addition of Rs. 39,70,08,480/-. 5. That Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the assessment despite the fact that principles of natural justice were grossly violated by the Ld. Assessing Officer in framing of assessment. 6. That Ld. CIT(A) was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in not considering the appellant's request for not making any disallowance u/s 14A which was initially made by the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the share application money/GDR was found. It has been time and again held by the various High Courts that if no incriminating material is found during the search action, the addition in the case of already concluded assessment cannot be made while framing assessment u/s 153A of the Act. Reliance in this respect can be placed in the case of 'CIT Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation' ITA No. 523 of 2013 reported in (2015) 279 CTR 0389 (Bombay) and of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 'CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla' 234 Taxman 300 (Delhi). We find that the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the aforesaid decisions. The view taken in the aforesaid decisions has been further affirmed by the Delhi High Court in the case of 'Principal CIT Vs. Meeta Gutgutia Prop M/s Ferns 'N' Petals", ITA 306/2017 and others decided vide order dated 25.5.2017. The aforesaid case laws can be well applied to the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. In view of this, we hold that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the action of the Ld. Assessing officer in framing u/s 153A of the Act. The assessment framed under section 153A for the assessment year under consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appellant is a limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of yarn, garments, towel, knitted cloth and running a dyeing house etc. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of the appellant on 11.09.2013. In pursuance to the search operation, proceedings under section 153 A of the Act were initiated by the Assessing Officer vide notice dated 24.03.2014, requiring the appellant to furnish return of income in respect of assessment years falling within the six assessment years, immediately preceding the previous year in which search was conducted. In response to the said notice, the appellant filed return of income for assessment year under consideration as under: AY Profit/Loss as per Return Date of Filing us 153 A 2010-11 Profit of Rs. 45,15,11,920 05.03.2015 2011-12 Profit of Rs. 60,85,81,130 02.03.2015 2013-14 Loss of Rs.29,03,51,706 02.03.2015 12. The assessment was completed vide order dated 30.01.2017, passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act, and income of the appellant has been assessed at Rs. 84,85,20,400/-, Rs. 431,02,21,140 and Rs.241,64,40,090 for AY 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... filed by the appellant in the course of present proceedings. It is seen from the same that not more than seven persons have subscribed to the issue of GDRs. 5.15 The appellant was asked in the course of assessment proceedings to furnish the details of these subscribers to the GDR issue by furnishing evidence to prove their identity, genuineness and creditworthiness of the investors along with the financial trail of the money which has been received from these investors into the accounts of the appellant. The appellant has failed to furnish any evidence on either of these parameters on the ground that GDR issue was a public issue and therefore, there is no onus placed upon him to furnish the details of these investors. 5.16 It would be pertinent at this stage to examine the provisions of section 68 of the IT act, which are reproduced as under: - "Cash credits. 68. Where any sum is found credited in the books of an assessee maintained for any previous year, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Assessing Officer, satisfactory, the sum so credited may be charged to income-tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion and emphasized that in case of private placement of shares the legal regime should be different from that which is followed in case of a company seeking share capital from the public at large. In the case of closely held companies, investments are made by known persons. Therefore, a higher onus is required to be placed on such companies besides the general onus to establish identity and credit worthiness of creditor and genuineness of transaction. This additional onus, needs to be placed on such companies to also prove the source of money in the hands of such shareholder or persons making payment towards issue of shares before such sum is accepted as genuine credit. If the company fails to discharge the additional onus, the sum shall be treated as income of the company and added to its income. It is, therefore, proposed to amend section 68 of the Act to provide that the nature and source of any sum credited, as share capital, share premium etc., in the books of a closely held company shall be treated as explained only if the source of funds is also explained by the assessee company in the hands of the resident shareholder, However, even in the case of closely held companie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce and forwarded details, of certain bank accounts allegedly received from the competent authority in respect of certain investors who had made investment in the GDR issue of the appellant company- Lemon Diversified Fund; KII Ltd., Emerging India Focus Funds and Sparrow Asia Diversified Opportunities Fund. AO has held that amounts debited from the bank account of the aforesaid investors, were not found correspondingly credited in the books of the appellant. Thus, I find that appellant has failed to furnish any information in this regard, though the primary onus lies upon him. 5.21 AO has after examination of the evidence filed by the appellant and received through the competent authority from outside India held that investees of the appellant company did not have sufficient sources to make such investment in the GDR of the appellant company. It is seen from the order that income tax returns of the investors for different years reflect a negative returned income (losses) and also show that these are 100$ companies, which means that all these entities have a share capital of about 100$. Thus, it is held by the AO that considering the paid-up share capital, the quantum of investment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... money, etc. The expression 'source' envisages establishing the identity and creditworthiness of the source/ person from whom the amount is received. The appellant has however furnished only skeleton information and failed to prove the identity of the creditor, credit worthiness of the creditor as well as genuineness of the transaction. The ultimate subscribers to the GDR issue were found to be only seven parties/entities and therefore, the claim of having made a public issue of GDR issue stands not proved. Further, the flow of funds from those entities to the bank account of the appellant could not be proved by the appellant. These entities are also found to be not credit worthy on account of these entities being hundred dollars companies having incurred losses as per their tax returns which have been collected by the AO. 5.25 Further, the fact which has been brought on record by the Assessing officer with regard to the cancellation of GDRs issued in different series, is as under: - GDR-I Series-Issued on 14.12.2009 Cancellation - 100% between 11.03.2010 to 26.03.2010 GDR-II Series- Issued on 04.05.2010 Cancellation- 99.99% between 23.06.2010 to 06.08.2010 GDR-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n from the details available in the financial market that not even a single financial institution or mutual funds has purchased shares/ GDRs of the appellant company. Further, utilization of GDR proceeds for the purposes for which funds were raised could not be established with evidence by the appellant in the course of assessment proceedings. The appellant has stated that advance payments were made for procurement of capital assets to the following parties out of the proceeds received on account of issue of GDR's:- (i) Feather stone universal Ltd (it) Autumn Star International Limited (iii) Midland overseas trading Ltd 5.29 All the three companies/entities to whom payments have been made for procurement of capital assets could not be traced by the AO. Efforts were made in the course of present proceedings by making search on the Internet about the strength of these entities but no such company could be found in any of the jurisdiction with in India (On the web site of Ministry of Corporate Affairs) and outside India. The appellant company also failed to furnish any evidence with regard to the payments made in the account of these companies and the resulting assets purc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also gone through the record. A perusal of the order of the Assessing officer as well as that of the CIT(A) reveals that both the authorities below have made the impugned additions on the basis of suspicion only. Despite best efforts made and even calling for information from foreign authorities i.e. from the authorities of the countries to which the subscriber of the GDRs belong through Foreign Tax Division, the AO could not extract any reliable evidence to show that the aforesaid subscription to the GDRs was out of the own funds of the assesse. The entire case has been built against the assessee by the Assessing Officer on certain assumptions, which the Ld. CIT(A) in the later part of the impugned order has taken/assumed as if the same were established facts, whereas it is not so. The assessing officer sought details through the Competent Authority (JS FT&TR) CBDT, Ministry of Finance, Delhi under the Indo-Switzerland, Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (DTAA), Indo-US DTAA, Indo-UAE DTAA and Indo-Mauritius DTAA to verify the identity, genuineness and credit worthiness of the investors and financial trail of the GDR proceeds received from the alleged investors. However, in the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stors was thereafter coordinated/managed by the Lead Managers. The Company duly issued the Shares in the name of the Depository. That in terms of the GDR offering circular and the terms of engagement with the lead manager, the investors were to make payment in respect of their investment in GDR to the lead managers in US Dollars and the same was in turn to be remitted to the issuing company i.e., the appellant, after deduction of lead manager fees. Thus, the entire amount was received by the appellant company through normal banking channels by means of online fund transfers from the accounts of its lead managers and in some cases through their offshore advisors. In view of the above explanation submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant which is duly corroborated with the relevant documents/evidence, the assumption of the lower authorities that it was in fact a private placement of shares is not established on the file in any manner. 18. So far as the observation of the Assessing Officer that there was difference between the amount withdrawn by the investors from their account and that has been received by the appellant, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant has explained that sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ss. That even it was not practically feasible to produce such investors who were non-residents and not even in direct contact with the appellant. It is submitted that the appellant has raised this money through a public issue, the instrument being listed on a stock exchange overseas, wherein there is no interaction between the appellant and the investor. In fact, most of the investors have off loaded their GDRs and now those shares are in the equity market (listed on the Indian Stock Exchange). Thus, to expect the appellant to produce the said entities and/or produce their original bank statements was not possible. 21. Regarding the issue of creditworthiness of the investors and further the onus on the appellant to establish the source of the source, the counsel for the appellant has submitted that GDR issue was a Public Issue, in case of public companies, since the shares are listed on stock exchange and traded on a real time basis, the company cannot be expected to provide details of the shareholders. The counsel for the appellant in this respect has also placed reliance on various judicial decisions to contend that no addition could be made u/s 68 of the IT Act as the money was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t authority i.e. JS FT&TR to the authorities located outside India for obtaining information regarding the bank accounts, sources of income, credit of the worthiness etc. of the subscribers to the GDR issue, however, the information received by the AO did not point out any adverse finding given by any foreign jurisdiction. The appellant provided all the information which it was supposed to provide. Though the AO in the assessment order has pointed out some dissatisfaction about the sufficiency of information received from foreign authorities through competent authority , however, that itself cannot be ground to take any adverse view against the assesse. 24. So far as issue relating to some information received from SEBI of market manipulation by a few entities some of whom had invested funds through the GDRs issued by the appellant, the Ld. Counsel has explained that the SEBI has merely suspected the transactions undertaken by the aforesaid entities and has nowhere suspended the said entities from undertaking any activities/transactions and the said order too was only an interim order. That no allegation whatsoever was made by SEBI in respect of the GDR issue made by the appellant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... conversion of GDR into shares. However, a perusal of the details / chart, as reproduced in pages 55 to 60 of the assessment order reveals that though after conversion, the number of shares had increased which was obvious, however, the percentage of holding i.e. from 57.27% before the issue of GDR's had decreased to 8.37%, though the number of shares increased to 2.77 Crores. It is a matter of fact that once the GDR's were cancelled for conversion to the shares, the number of shares will increase. Under the circumstances, the observation of the Ld. CIT(A) that shareholding has increased is against the facts on the file. Moreover, it is likely that once the GDR is issued, the shareholding of the promoter is likely to decrease. 27. In view of the above discussion, the Revenue has failed to prove that the transaction relating to the GDR's issue was a sham transaction or that it was money of the assessee which was routed through foreign channels through GDR's. Despite of the fact that all the information which the assesse was supposed to provide was provided by the assessee and also that the information regarding the investors was also received by the Assessing officer from the foreign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing officer as well as the comments of the assessee were duly taken. Hence, the grievance of the assessee, if any, on this issue, stood readdressed in the appellate proceedings. We do not agree with the above contention of the Ld. DR on this issue. The Assessing officer himself has observed that the substantial information from the Foreign Tax Division was awaited. The assessee was asked to furnish voluminous details and evidences at the fag end of the limitation period on 27.1.2017 to which the assessee could reply with voluminous papers and evidences on 30.1.2017, however, the assessment was framed on 30.1.2017 itself. The facts itself speaks that the Assessing officer did not apply his mind to the reply filed by the assessee. Even the information received by the Assessing officer, as per his own version, was partial information and substantial information was awaited. In view of this, the assessment framed by the Assessing officer was not passed on the proper appreciation of the evidences. Even otherwise, in view of our observation made above, even despite information received during the appellate proceedings, no adverse view is established. Moreover, we have already discu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that the investment made was out of appellants own sources. It was submitted that the appellant company had share capital, share application money and reserves and surplus which was much more than the amount of investment made as can be seen from the table below: AY Disallowance u/s Surplus Investments 2010-11 4.54 Crores 495.55 Crores 158.90 Crores 2011-12 7.09 Crores 997.37 Crores 214.23 Crores 2013-14 23.28 Crores 1435.86 Crores 556.44 Crores It was submitted that appellant had borrowed funds in form of working capital and term Loans from banks. That the funds raised by the assessee company had been used only for the purposes for which they had been granted and the chances of diversion of funds for any other purpose were miniscule considering the stringent standards of monitoring and documentation prescribed. That no part of the interest expenses was relatable to the investments in equity instruments/share application money. It was therefore submitted that since no interest-bearing funds were used in making investments thus, no interest expenditure was incurred in earning exempt dividend income. The appellant has further contended that as no expenditu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on that basis. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee though , had taken a number of grounds of appeal, however, the inclusion of the said amount of interest was not challenged. The inclusion of the said amount of interest was not objected to even in the grounds of appeal as originally filed before the Tribunal. However, the assessee by way of subsequent letter raised the additional ground in relation to the said inclusion of interest into the income of the assessee. In the above circumstances, the question before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was "Where on the facts found by the authorities below a question of law arises (though not raised before the authorities) which bears on the tax liability of the assessee, whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine the same?" The Hon'ble Supreme Court while answering the said question observed that under section 254 of the Income Tax Act, the power of the Tribunal in dealing with the appeals is expressed in the widest possible terms; the power of the Tribunal under section 254 is not restricted only to decide the grounds which arise from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals); that both the assessee as well as the department h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Bombay High Court in the case of "CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers and Shareholders Pvt. Ltd." (2012) 349 ITR 336 (Bom.) has observed that the assessee is entitled to raise not merely additional legal submissions before the appellate authorities, but is also entitled to raise additional clams before them. The appellate authorities have jurisdiction to deal not merely with additional grounds, which became available on account of change of circumstances or law, but with additional grounds which were available when the return was filed. The words 'could not have been raised' must be construed liberally and not strictly. There may be several factors justifying the raising of a new plea in an appeal and each case must be considered on its own facts. 38. The co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of "Shri Chandrashekhar Bahirwani" ITA No.7810/M/2010 and 6599/M/2011 vide order dated 17.06.2015 while deciding the question as to whether the income cannot be assessed less than the returned income has observed as under: "5. Now coming to the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), that income cannot be assessed less than the returned income, the Ld. A.R. of the assessee has submitted before us that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same. The assessee cannot be burdened with the taxes which he otherwise is not liable to pay under the law. Even a duty has also been cast upon the Income Tax Authorities to charge the legitimate tax from the tax payers. They are not there to punish the tax payers for their bonafide mistakes. In view of our above observations, it is held that the assessee is not liable to pay Capital Gains Tax, though originally he had subjected himself to the said tax as per his return of income. The AO is directed to process the claim of refund in this respect as per provisions of the law." 39. In view of the above settled position of law it is held that the assessee is entitled to raise this additional legal ground. 40. Now coming to the merits of the case. First of all, it is pertinent to mention here that disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is not made on account of any additional income found either in cash or in kind or otherwise in respect of any documents or entries in the account book. It is, in fact, a notional disallowance out of the total expenditure claimed by the assessee on the footing that out of the total expenditure, some of the expenditure might have been attributable to the activ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e is possessed of sufficient own interest free funds to meet the investments / interest free advances, then, under the circumstances, presumption will be that interest free advances / investments have been made by the assessee out of own funds / interest free funds. Reliance in this respect can also be placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Hero Cycles (P) Ltd Vs. CIT' 379 ITR 347 (SC) and also on the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'CIT (LTU) Vs. Reliance Industries Ltd.' [2019] 410 ITR 466 (SC). 41. Moreover, the assessee has taken a specific stand that no expenditure has been incurred by the assessee for making investments etc. and that no disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is attracted. Neither the Assessing officer nor the CIT(A) has recorded any satisfaction from the accounts of the assessee that the assessee's above contention is not correct. 41. Even the different Hon'ble High Courts of the country have been unanimous to hold that no disallowance is attracted u/s 14A in case the assessee has not earned any income not forming part of the total income and that the disallowance u/s 14A can not exceed the total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amed by the Ld. Assessing Officer was not beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. 3. That Ld. CIT(A) was not justified to arbitrarily uphold the addition made at Rs. 370,16,40,000/- representing proceeds of GDR issued by the appellant as unexplained credit by resort to provisions of Section 68 of the Income Tax Act. 4. That Ld. CIT(A) has relied on a lot of irrelevant data marshalled by the Ld. Assessing Officer while upholding the above mentioned addition of Rs. 370,16,40,000/-. 5. That Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the assessment despite the fact that principles of natural justice were grossly violated by the Ld. Assessing Officer in framing of assessment. 6. That Ld. CIT(A) was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in not considering the appellant's request for not making any disallowance u/s 14A which was initially made by the appellant while filing the return of income. 45. Ground No.1 : In ground No.1, the assessee has taken a plea that the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act in this case was bad in law as no incriminating material was found in search action carried at the premises of the assessee on 11.9. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 14A to the extent of exempt income at Rs. 3,76,02,590/- as against disallowance made at Rs. 10,73,48,728/-. 51. We find that the issue raised above is similar to that of ground No. 6 raised in ITA No. 157/Chd/2018 relating to assessment year 2010-11. In view of our findings given above, the disallowance u/s 14A is restricted to the extent of tax exempt income earned by the assesee for the assessment year under consideration. This ground is accordingly allowed in favour of the assesse. Accordingly, this appeal of the assessee is allowed. ITA No.160/Chd/2018 (A.Y. 2013-14) 52. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 1. That order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in framing assessment u/s 153A despite the fact that no incriminating material was found during the course of search. 2. That Ld. CIT(A) gravely erred in holding that the assessment framed by the Ld. Assessing Officer was not beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the Act. 3. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t declared by the appellant at 3.54% 2. That Ld. CIT(A) was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing officer in not entertaining the claim of the appellant regarding disallowance of Rs. 30,34,94,742/- u/s 14A despite the fact that the specific request was made by the appellant before the Ld. Assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings. 3 That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to adjudicate ground raised by the appellant with regard to the disallowance u/s 43B amounting to Rs. 79,61,619/-. 58. Ground No.1: Vide this ground, the assessee has agitated the action of the CIT(A) in estimating the gross profit at 25% as against decaled by the assessee at 3.54% on account of shortage of stock. The plea of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee in this respect is that while estimating the income of the assessee on account of shortage of stock, the Assessing officer has treated the total value of the short stock as undisclosed income of the assessee. It has been further submitted that amount of Rs. 63,80,140/- which represented the gross profit earned on the value of short stock was already disclosed in the revised return of income filed on 28.2.2015. It has been further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he issue is restored to the file of the Assessing officer for adjudication afresh on this ground. Accordingly, this ground stands allowed for statistical purposes. This appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 64. Now, coming to appeals raised by the Revenue. ITA No. 302/Chd/2018 (A.Y. 2012-13):- 65. The Revenue in its appeal has raised the following grounds:- 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 79,75,547/- made by the Assessing officer u/s 36(i)(iii) on account of proportionate disallowance of interest expenditure on non-business interest free advances made by the assessee. 2. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 39,84,576/- on account of delayed deposit of employees contribution to ESIC, FP and EPF by ignoring provisions of section 36(i)(iv) of the I.T. Act 1961 and CBDT Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015 3. The appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal on or before is heard and disposed off. 66. Ground No.1 : The first ground taken by the Revenue is regarding the action of the CIT(A) in deleting the addition made by the Assessing officer into the incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9;ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of 'CIT Vs. Kapsons Associates' '381 ITR 204, wherein, their lordships have held that the appellant had sufficient interest free advances from its Directors, Shareholders, Members and their families to cover the interest free advances made by the appellant, the interest on the borrowings to the extent interest free advances is not to be disallowed. 70. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the impugned addition has followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Hero Cycles Ltd.' 379 ITR 340 (SC) and of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of 'CIT Vs. Kaspons Associates', 381 ITR 203 (P&H) and further this issue is squarely covered by the recent decision of the Coordinate Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal in the case of 'ACIT Vs. Janak Global Resources Pvt Ltd' ITA No. 470/Chd/2018 order dated 16.10.2018, wherein, the issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by considering the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Hero Cycles Vs. CIT' 379 ITR 347 (SC) and also findings arrived in the case of Avon Cycles Ltd. Vs. CIT in ITA No.277 of 2013.Moreover the issue now is square ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r:- "7.3 I have carefully considered the contentions of the appellant and have also gone through the decisions cited by the appellant on this issue and find that appellant had filed its return of income on 28.09.2012 and therefore, all the payments made on account of employee's contribution to ESI, EPF up to this date had to be allowed by the AO. I have gone through the details of payments made by the appellant as given in the assessment order and find that all the payments have been made by the appellant on account of EPF and ESI before the due date of filing of return of income. Therefore, considering these facts and placing reliance on the judgment of the honorable Supreme Court on this issue, the disallowance made by the AO is deleted. The appeal filed by the appellant on this ground is allowed. 8. In the result the appeal is partly allowed." 75. Before us, the Ld. DR, has submitted that the assessee has not furnished the proof that the employees have made payments towards PF & ESIC from the due date of filing of the return for the year under consideration. However, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given a categorical finding that he has gone through the details o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
