DCIT 10(2), MUMBAI V. GOPINATH ENGG.CO. P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 2405/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7279 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH G, MUMBAI. BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, J.M. AND SHRI J. SUDHAK AR REDDY, A.M. I.T.A. NO. 24 05/MUM/2009. ASSESSMENT YEA R : 2003-04 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GOPINATH E NGG. CO. P. LTD., 10(2), MUMBAI. VS. 15, SATYAM-C, SATYAM SHOPPING CENTRE, M.G. ROAD, GHATKIPAR, MUMBAI - 400077 PAN AAACG1935D APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI MOHD. USMAN. RESPONDENT BY : NONE. O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-VI, MUMBAI DATED 23-02-20 09 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING TO ALLOW THE PAYMENTS OF RS.22,48,811/- AND RS.3,67,484/- BEING EMPLOYEES CO NTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF AND ESIC RESPECTIVELY WHICH HAVE BEEN MA DE WITHIN GRACE PERIOD AS THERE IS NO PROVISION TO CONSIDER G RACE PERIOD IN THE I.T. ACT. EXPLANATION TO SEC. 36(1)(VI) SPEAKS OF D UE DATE AND NOT OF THE GRACE PERIOD. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL AS IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADHOC ADDITION OF RS.1 LAKH OUT OF WELFARE EXPENSES AND RS.75,000/- OUT OF SITE EXPENSES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER THAT NUMEROUS VOUCHERS/EVIDENCES ARE WITHOUT ANY SUPPORT ING EVIDENCE. 2 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUND BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE R ESTORED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GR OUNDS OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE ISSUAL OF NOTICE. THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IS ON RECORD. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DISPOSE OF THE CASE EXPARTE ON MERITS QUA THE ASSES SEE AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DR. 3. HEARD THE LEARNED DR. COMING TO THE ISSUE OF AL LOWABILITY OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION FUND TOWARDS PF AND ESIC, WE FIND THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HA S FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAL EM CO-OP. SPINNING MILLS LTD. REPORTED IN 258 ITR 360 AND DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW THOSE PAYMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE WITHIN THE GRACE PERI OD. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAME. THUS WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. 4. COMING TO THE SECOND GROUND, THE FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY FOUND THAT THE AO HAD DISALLOWED THESE AMOUNTS, WIT HOUT ANY DISCUSSION IN THE BODY OF THE ORDER IN RESPECT OF THESE DISALL OWANCES. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS THE BOOKS ARE AUDITED, THE CIT(AP PEALS) FOUND THAT THE AO WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DISCREPANCIES, WRONGLY MADE A DISALLOWANCE. IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION, THE FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY WAS 3 RIGHT IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE. THUS WE DISMISS GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUE. 5. GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND N EED NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2010. SD/- SD/- (N.V.VASUDEVAN) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. MUMBAI, DATED : 24 TH MARCH, 2010. WAKODE COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, A-BENCH. (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.