M/s. Chloritech Industries, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Ahmedabad

CO 14/AHD/2022

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by the Department of Income Tax against Chloritech Industries concerning the disallowance of deductions claimed under section 35(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act for donations made to HHBRF for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The primary legal issue was whether the deductions claimed were valid despite the later withdrawal of HHBRF's approval as a qualifying entity for such deductions. The CIT(A) had allowed the deductions, which the Department appealed against. The Tribunal, referencing a Gujarat High Court decision, upheld the CIT(A)'s ruling, leading to the dismissal of the Department's appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 131547 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 16-04-2023
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 12-04-2022
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT vs. M/s. Thakkar Govindbhai Ganpatlal HUF, Jayesh Prabhudas Shah Vs. ITO, S.G.Vat Care Private Limited vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Question of law; Tax effect
• Section: 148; 43B; 143(2); 139(1)

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member Th e ACIT, Circle-2 (1 )(1), Ah medabad (Appellant) Vs Chloritech Ind ustries Harikunj Opp. C.N. Vid hyalaya, A mba vad i, Ah med abad-3800 06 PAN: AABFC2 255J (Resp ondent) Ch lo ritech Indu stries Hariku nj Opp. C.N. Vidhy alay a, A mba vadi, Ah medabad -3 80006 PAN: AABFC22 55J (Appellant) Vs The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1 ), Ah med abad (Resp ondent) Asses see b y : Shri Biren Shah, A. R. Revenue by : Shri Pravin Verma, Sr. D. R. Date of hearing : 17-04 -2023 Date of pronouncement : 21-04 -2023 ITA Nos. 67 & 68 /Ahd/2022 Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 C.O. Nos. 14 & 15/Ahd/2022 (in ITA Nos. 67 & 68 /Ahd/2022) Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 I.T.A Nos. 67, 68 & CO 14 &15/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No. ACIT vs. M/s. Chloritech Industries & Chloritech Industries vs. ACIT 2 आदेश/ORDER PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These are two appeals filed by the Department against the order of CIT(A) for assessment year 2013-14 and assessment year 2014-115 and also assessee’s cross objections to the appeals filed by the Department for the aforesaid years. 2. Since common issues for consideration are involved in both the years under consideration, the appeals of the Department and the cross objections filed by the assessee are being disposed of by way of a common order. We shall first discuss department’s appeal for assessment year 2013-14. 3. The department has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “(1) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the bogus deduction claim u/s 35(l)(ii) of the Act on account of donation made to Hebicure Health Cure Bio Herbal Research Foundation amounting to Rs 2,10,00,000/~, without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record?" (2) The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary. (3) It is, therefore, prayed that the order of Id. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” I.T.A Nos. 67, 68 & CO 14 &15/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No. ACIT vs. M/s. Chloritech Industries & Chloritech Industries vs. ACIT 3 4. Before taking up case of Department on merit, we observe that the appeal filed by the Department is time barred 15 days. However, we observe that the order passed by ld. CIT(A) was received by the Department on 30-12-2021 and therefore since the date of filing of appeal is falling in the Corona Pandemic period, in the interest of justice, the delay of 15 days in filing of appeal by the Department is hereby being condoned. 5. On merits, the brief facts of the case are that the assessee had claimed weighted deduction of Rs.2,10,00,000/- u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Act on account of making donation of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- to M/s. Herbicure Healthcare Bio- herbal Research Foundation, Calcutta (hereinafter referred to as “ HHBRF”). During the year under consideration, the original assessment of the assessee was finalized and no disallowance was made by the Assessing Officer in respect of aforesaid claim of weighted deduction u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Act. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information from CBDT vide letter dated 14-12-2018 in which it was stated that HHBRF is not an approved entity u/s. 35(1)(ii)(iii) of the Act. The Assessing Officer received further information regarding non-genuineness of deduction claimed on account of donation made to HHBRF. It was informed to the Assessing Officer that HHBRF has misused the provisions of section 35(1)(ii) of the Act by engaging in providing bogus donation entries to the donors/beneficiaries and thus enabling the donors to claim false weighted deduction under the Act and thereby helping them in evading the taxes. In view of the above information, the Assessing Officer reopened the case of the assessee and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee, disallowed the claim made by the assessee u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Act I.T.A Nos. 67, 68 & CO 14 &15/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No. ACIT vs. M/s. Chloritech Industries & Chloritech Industries vs. ACIT 4 amounting to Rs. 2,10,00,000/- on account of making donation of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- to HHBRF. While making the addition, the Assessing Officer made the following observations:- “10. The reply of the assessee is perused carefully but not found acceptable/tenable. As the assessed not only failed to establish the genuineness of the contention regarding deduction claimed u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Act but also found to be deriving benefit by misusing of stationery to evade the legitimate taxes. Therefore, in view of the same following are the observation: 1. M/s Herbicure Healthcare Bio-herbal Research Foundation(HHBRF), Kolkata is not an approved entity u/s. 35(1)(ii)/(iii) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore deduction claimed on account of donation made to the same is not allowable as per law. 2. All the documentary evidences produced by the assessee are non- genuine/bogus. 11. In view of the above elaborate discussion it is ispo facta established that the deduction claimed by the assessed u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Act on account of donation made to M/s Herbicure Healthcare Bio-herbal Research Foundation(HHBRF), Kolkata, is not allowable as per law. The deduction claimed to the tune of Rs. 2,10,00,000/- is disallowed and is added back in total income of the assessed. (Addition Rs. 2,10,00,000/-)” 6. The assessee filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that though the case of the case was reopened u/s. 148 of the Act, however, the contents of the CBDT letter dated 14-12-2018 on the basis of which the addition has been made, has not been reproduced by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order. Further, the assessee submitted that though the Assessing Officer has made a mention that HHBRF has misused the provisions of section 35(1)(ii) of the Act by engaging in providing bogus donation receipts to the donors/beneficiaries, however, the Assessing Officer I.T.A Nos. 67, 68 & CO 14 &15/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No. ACIT vs. M/s. Chloritech Industries & Chloritech Industries vs. ACIT 5 has nowhere in the assessment order revealed the source of the information which has been received by the Assessing Officer. Further, the counsel for the assessee submitted that at the time when the donation was made by the assessee to HHBRF, the approval of the said entity i.e. HHBRF was very much in place and it was only subsequently on 06-09-2016 when the approval granted to HHBRF was withdrawn with retrospective effect 01-04- 2007. Further, the assessee also placed reliance on the case of Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. M/s. Thakkar Govindbhai Ganpatlal HUF in Appeal No. 881 of 2019 dated 20-01-2020. The assessee submitted that in this case on similar facts, the appeal of the assessee was allowed in respect of donation made to HHBRF on the ground that there is nothing on record to show that the donation which was transferred to HHBRF through banking channels was returned back to the assessee in cash. Further, the counsel for the assessee also relied on several cases of the Ahmedabad ITAT and other Tribunals in support of its contention that at the time when the donation was made by the assessee to HHBRF, the approval of HHBRF was in place and the same was only withdrawn by a notification in the later years and hence the assessee’s claim of deduction u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Act cannot be disallowed. In the light of the above submission made by the assessee in the appellate proceedings, the CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee on the ground that the assessee had donated the aforesaid sum to the foundation much before the cancellation of the approval vide order dated 06-09-2016 by CBDT. Further, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessing Officer has not established in his order by way of an independent finding that the assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Act. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the basis of reopening of assessment was CBDT’s I.T.A Nos. 67, 68 & CO 14 &15/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No. ACIT vs. M/s. Chloritech Industries & Chloritech Industries vs. ACIT 6 letter dated 14-12-2018, however, on perusal of the assessment order, it was observed that the Assessing Officer has not reproduced the contents of the aforesaid letter on the basis of which the case of the assessee was reopened and additions have been made. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee with the following observations:- “(viii) In view of above judicial pronouncements relied upon by the assessee, it is observed that jurisdictional High Court and ITAT, have decided the identical issue in favour of assessee. In various judgements, the fact that approval granted by Govt. of India to "HHBRF" was subsequently withdrawn by the Govt. has been considered. It is observed that Hon'ble Ahmedabad Tribunal, being the jurisdictional Tribunal, in case of Jayesh Prabhudas Shah Vs. ITO vide ITA No: 1150/Ahd/2018 dated 20/02/2020, has considered the aspect that rejection of the allowance claimed u/s 35(1)(ii) was made by AO on the ground that by and under a notification dated 06.09.2016 issued by CBDT, the approval granted to the foundation involved in that case had been withdrawn, and on that basis it was held by AO that the assessee is the beneficiary of such bogus donation under section 35(1 )(ii) of the Income Tax Act. Hon'ble ITAT, after observing that the assessee donated the sum to the foundation much before the cancellation dated 06.09.2016 by the CBDT towards the approval granted to such foundation, held that AO cannot penalize the assessee/donar under such circumstances. In some judgements, while granting judgement in favour of assessee, the findings of survey carried out by the investigation wing on "HHBRF" has also been considered and it has been held that findings of survey team have not been independently established by the AO, in order to arrive at the conclusion that assessee was not eligible for deduction u/s 35(1 )(ii). Assessment order clearly shows that entire basis for AO to make disallowances u/s 35(1 )(ii) was the letter of CBDT vide letter F.No. 225/351/2018 ITA(ii) dated 14/12/2018 and receiving further information regarding non-genuineness of deduction claimed by the assessee on account of donation made to "HHBRF", as it was informed to AO that "HHBRF" has grossly misused the provisions of section 35(1 )(ii) of the Act by engaging in providing bogus donation I.T.A Nos. 67, 68 & CO 14 &15/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No. ACIT vs. M/s. Chloritech Industries & Chloritech Industries vs. ACIT 7 receipts to the donors/beneficiaries and thus enabling the donors to claim a false weighted deduction under the Act and thereby evading the taxes. As already discussed above, only on the basis of two sources of information, first being CBDT's letter F.No. 225/351/2018 ITA(ii) dated 14/12/2018, the contents of which has not been reproduced by the AO in the assessment order, and other being the further information received by AO, whose source has not been revealed by AO anywhere in the assessment order, AO treated the documents submitted by the assessee before AO, like donation receipt issued by "HHBRF" to the assessee and the copy of recognition certificate issued to "HHBRF" as non-genuine/bogus documents. Accordingly, in the assessment order, the AO has made disallowance of deduction u/s 35(1)(ii). Nowhere in the assessment order, AO has established the cash trail as was advised by CBDT in its letter (CBDT letter advised the AO that while handling investigations/enquiries in these cases, the concerned Assessing Officer should examine the specific transactions related to the sum donated and cash trail should be clearly identified). Nowhere in the assessment order, AO has carried out absolutely any enquiry and investigation under the Act, as was advised by CBDT in its letter, before making disallowances u/s 35(1 )(ii). In view of above stated facts and circumstances of the case, and observing that Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court and ITAT have decided the issue in favour of assessee, considering the same, the addition of Rs.2,10,00,000/- made towards disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 35(1)(ii) is deleted. ground no. 2 is allowed in favour of assessee.” 7. The Department is in appeal before us against the relief granted by the ld. CIT(A) in the appellate order. The Ld. D.R. placed reliance on the observations made by the A.O. in the assessment order. In response, the counsel for the assessee submitted that the case of the assessee is squarely covered in its favour by the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. M/s. Thakkar Govindbhai Ganpatlal HUF in Appeal No. 881 I.T.A Nos. 67, 68 & CO 14 &15/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No. ACIT vs. M/s. Chloritech Industries & Chloritech Industries vs. ACIT 8 of 2019 dated 20-01-2020. The counsel for the assessee submitted that it was in the light of the observations made by the Gujarat High Court in the aforesaid case that the relief was afforded by the ld. CIT(A) in appellate proceedings. Accordingly, the counsel for the assessee submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) who has placed reliance on the aforesaid decision to afford relief to the assessee in respect of donation made to HHBRF. 8. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We observe that the ld. CIT(A) has placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. M/s. Thakkar Govindbhai Ganpatlal HUF supra in which on similar set of facts the claim of deduction u/s. 35(1)(ii) of the Act in respect of donations made to HHBRF was allowed to the assessee. It would be useful to reproduce the relevant extract of the judgment for ready reference:- “3. The assessee filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 09.09.2014 declaring total income at Rs.31,23,870/-. A notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the Act by the Assessing Officer, calling upon the assesses to explain as to why the deduction of Rs.96,25,000/-, claimed under Section 35(1) (ii) being donation for scientific research of the I.T. Act, 1961, should not be disallowed. According to the Assessing Officer, the donation given to one M/s. Herbicure Healthcare Bio-Herbal Research Foundation (for short 'the Herbicure'), was not a genuine research foundation. The Assessing Officer, relied upon the survey under taken under Section 133A of the Act, conducted by the DDIT (Investigation, Kolkata) at Herbicure and during the course of the survey it was found that the donor/beneficiaries in connivance with Herbicure with the active help of brokers, entry operators/bogus billers were engaged in bogus donation syndicate and the donations were returned back to the I.T.A Nos. 67, 68 & CO 14 &15/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No. ACIT vs. M/s. Chloritech Industries & Chloritech Industries vs. ACIT 9 donors in lieu of commission. Therefore, the amount claimed under Section 35(1)(ii) was disallowed by the Assessing Officer. 4. Assessee, therefore, being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the assessment order, preferred an Appeal before the CIT (Appeals). The CIT (Appeals) deleted addition, holding as under: "In view of above facts and case law(supra), I agree with the appellant that the amount of donation has been transferred to the foundation through banking channel and there is no evidence that the same has been returned in cash. Moreover, the trust has confirmed that such amount has been utilized for scientific research vide confirmation dated 29.05.2015. The receiver foundation shall not be confirming the same unless the amount has been utilized for scientific research. The onus has been discharged by the appellant. In the circumstances, it cannot be concluded that the foundation was involved in 100% bogus activity in A.Y.2014-15 which was much before the cancellation notification issued by CBDT u/s. 35(1) (ii) . The grounds of appeal are allowed." 5. The Revenue carried the matter before the Tribunal. After considering the facts and findings given by the CIT (Appeals), relying upon the decision in the case of S.G.Vat Care Private Limited in ITA No.1943/Ahd/2017, Tribunal confirmed the deletion made by the CIT (Appeals) on the ground that the there was no disparity of facts in the present case and in the case of S.G.Vat Care Private Limited (Supra) . 6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr.M.R.Bhatt for the appellant submitted that there no appeal is filed by the Revenue against the decision of the Tribunal in the case of S.G.Vat Care Private Limited (Supra). It would therefore be germane to refer to the following findings, given by the Tribunal in the case of S.G.Vat Care Private Limited (Supra):- "2. In the first ground of appeal, the grievance of the assesses is that the Id.CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs.8, 75, 000/- on account of alleged bogus donation to Herbicure Heathcare Bio-Herbal Research Foundation. I.T.A Nos. 67, 68 & CO 14 &15/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No. ACIT vs. M/s. Chloritech Industries & Chloritech Industries vs. ACIT 10 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed return of income on 20.11.2014 declaring total income at Rs.4,47,910/-. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed that the assessee- company has given donation to Herbicure Healthcare Bio- Herbal Research Foundation, Calcutta. A survey action was carried out at the premises of the donee wherein it revealed to the Revenue that this concern was misusing the benefit of notification issued by the Income Tax Department. It has been getting donation from various sources, and after deducting certain amount of commission, these donation were refused in cash. On the basis of that survey report registration granted to its favour was cancelled. On the basis of the outcome of that survey report, the Id.AO construed the donation given by the assessee as bogus. Appeal to the Id.CIT(A) did not bring any relief to the assessee. 4. Before us, the Id. Counsel for the assessee contended that donations were given on 25.03.2014. At that point of time, donee was notified as eligible institution and fall within the statutory eligibility criterion. Certificate for receiving donation was cancelled on 6.9.2016. There is no mechanism with the assessee to verify whether such donee was a genuine institute or not, which can avail donation from the society. 5. The ld. DR, on the other hand, contended that in the investigation it came to know about bogus affairs conducted by the donee. Hence, these donations are rightly been treated as bogus, and addition is rightly made. 6. We have duly considered rival contentions and gone through the record carefully. The AO is harping upon an information supplied by the survey tern of Calcutta. He has not specifically recorded statement of representative of the donee. He has not brought on record a specific evidence wherein donee has deposed that donations received from the assessee was paid back in cash after deducting commission. On the basis of general information collected from the donee, the donation made by the assessee cannot be doubted. Neither representatives of the donee have been put to cross- I.T.A Nos. 67, 68 & CO 14 &15/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No. ACIT vs. M/s. Chloritech Industries & Chloritech Industries vs. ACIT 11 examination, nor any specific reply deposing that such donation was not received, or if received the same was repaid in cash, has been brought on record. In the absence of such circumstances, donation given by the assesses to the donee, on which the assessee no mechanism to check the veraci, can be doubted, more particularly, when certificate to obtain donation has been cancelled after two years of the payment of donation. It is fact which has been unearthed subsequent to the donations. Therefore, there cannot be any disallowance on this issue. We allow this ground." 7. In the facts of the present case, the CIT (Appeals) has given the finding of the fact that the amount of donation was transferred to the Herbicure through Bank channel and. there is no evidence that the same is returned back in cash. 8. It is also found that the Herbicure Foundation has confirmed that the amount has been utilized for scientific research vide confirmation dated 29.09.2016. Accordingly, the onus placed upon the assessee was discharged. 9. In view of the aforesaid findings of the fact given by both the authorities below, no interfere in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is required to be made. No substantial question of law arise from the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal fails and is hereby, dismissed.” 8.1 In the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court and the detailed order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on the issue by placing reliance on the aforesaid order passed by the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, we are of the considered view that there is no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) so as to call for any interference. In the result, the appeal of the Department is dismissed. I.T.A Nos. 67, 68 & CO 14 &15/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No. ACIT vs. M/s. Chloritech Industries & Chloritech Industries vs. ACIT 12 Now, we shall take up the department’s appeal for assessment year 2014-15. 9. The Department has taken the following grounds of appeal:- “(1) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the bogus deduction claim u/s 35(1 )(ii) of the Act on account of donation made to Hebicure Health Cure Bio Herbal Research Foundation amounting to Rs 1,75,00,000/-, without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record?" (2) The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the commission expense paid on account of donation made to Hebicure Health Cure Bio Herbal Research Foundation amounting to Rs 12,00,000./-, without properly appreciating the facts of the case and the material brought on record?". (3) The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground, which may be necessary. (4) It is, therefore, prayed that the order of Id. CIT(A) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.” 10. At the outset, we observe that the appeal of the Department is time barred 15 days. However, since the order passed by ld. CIT(A) was communicated on 30-12-2020 and the date of appeal was falling in the Covid pandemic period, in the interest of justice, we are hereby condoning the delay in filing of appeal by the Department. 11. On merits, we observe that the issues for consideration are identical to those in assessment year 2013-14. Since, we have dismissed the appeal of the Department for assessment year 2013-14 in the light of decision of I.T.A Nos. 67, 68 & CO 14 &15/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No. ACIT vs. M/s. Chloritech Industries & Chloritech Industries vs. ACIT 13 Jurisdictional Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. M/s. Thakkar Govindbhai HUF supra, accordingly, following the same, the appeal of the Department is dismissed for assessment year 2014-15 as well. Now, we shall take up assessee’s cross objection for assessment year 2013-14. 12. The assessee has taken the following grounds in the cross objection:- “1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating upon Ground No. 1 raised before him which is reproduced in Para-8 of his order. 2. The Ld CIT(A) ought to have appreciated the facts and the submissions made before him in respect of Ground No. 1 and quashed the assessment order as void.” 13. Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that in case the appeal of the Department is dismissed in view of the favourable decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, the assessee shall not be pressing for its cross objection. We observe that in the aforesaid cross objection, the assessee has challenged the validity of 147 proceedings initiated by the ld. Assessing Officer. However, since we have dismissed the Department’s appeal on merits in view of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Thakkar Govindbhai HUF supra, we are hereby dismissing the cross objections filed by the assessee as not pressed. In the result, the cross objection filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 are being dismissed as not pressed. I.T.A Nos. 67, 68 & CO 14 &15/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No. ACIT vs. M/s. Chloritech Industries & Chloritech Industries vs. ACIT 14 Now we shall take up the assessee’s cross objection for assessment year 2014-15 14. The assessee has taken the following grounds in the cross objection:- “1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not allowing upon Ground No. 1 raised before him. 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,69,613/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 43B in respect of payment of Employee's Contribution to PF and ESI, though said payments were made before the due date for submitting the return of income u/s. 139(1) of the act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in not deleting the interest charged u/s. 234A of the Act, though return of income was duly filed by appellant within time extended by CBDT for submission of return of income, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that there was no justification for charging interest u/s. 234A of the Act. Total tax effect Rs. 87,476/-” 15. Before us, the counsel for the assessee submitted that in case the appeal of the Department is dismissed in view of the favourable decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court, the assessee shall not be pressing for its cross objection. We observe that in the aforesaid cross objection, the assessee has challenged the validity of 147 proceedings initiated by the ld. Assessing Officer. However, since we have dismissed the Department’s appeal on merits in view of the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Thakkar Govindbhai HUF supra, we are hereby dismissing I.T.A Nos. 67, 68 & CO 14 &15/Ahd/2022 A.Y. 2013-14 & 2014-15 Page No. ACIT vs. M/s. Chloritech Industries & Chloritech Industries vs. ACIT 15 the cross objections filed by the assessee as not pressed. In the result, the cross objections filed by the assessee for assessment year 2014-15 are being dismissed as not pressed. 16. In the combined result, both the appeals filed by the Department and both the cross objections filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21-04-2023 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 21/04/2023 आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/ आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद