RAYCHEM RPG P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ASST CIT CIR 7(2), MUMBAI

ITA 4329/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0357 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JYOTHILAKSHMI NAYAK SR AR
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH V SHAH; NIYANTA MEHTA ARS
• Keywords: Revised return; Set aside
• Section: 43B; 13; 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D, BENCH MUM BAI BEFORE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4329/MUM/2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 ) RAYCHEM RPG PVT.LTD. RPG HOUSE, 463 DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD, WORLI,MUMBAI-400 030 VS. ADDL.CIT, RANGE-7(2) AAYKAR BHAWAN M.K.ROAD MUMBAI-400 020 PAN/GIR NO. AA A CR8032L ( APPELLANT ) .. RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY SMT.JYOTHILAKSHMI NAYAK, SR.AR (ADDL, CIT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI. MANISH V. SHAH & MS. NIYANTA MEHTA, ARS DATE OF HEARING 10/12 /2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13/12/2019 / O R D E R PER G.MANJUNATHA (A.M) : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST, THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)14, MUMBAI, DATED 09/04/2018 AND IT PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE ASSESEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- I. GROUND 1: ADDITION UNDER SECTION 145A OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.6589,009/- 1 . ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE C1T(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ADDITIONAL COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX- 8(1)(1) ('AO'') IN INVOKING SECTION 145 A OF THE AC T AND UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE THEREOF. 2. THE APPELLATE PRAYS THAT THE AFORESAID ADDITION BE DELETED AS THERE IS NO EFFECT IN PROFITS OF THE APPELLANT AS PER DETAIL ED WORKING IN CLAUSE 12(B) OF TAX AUDIT REPORT II. GROUND II: DISALLOWANCES UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VA ) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.538,071/- ITA NO.4329/MUM/2018 RAYCHEM RPG PVT.LTD. 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA\V. THE C1T{(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN NOT CONSIDERING THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT TOWARDS DELAYED PAYMEN T OF EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND UNDER SECTION 43B/36 (1)(VA) OF THE ACT. 2.. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS THAT THE AO HE DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE AFORESAID EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT THEY WERE PAID BEF ORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. III. GROUND III THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, ALTER AND/OR AMEND THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF TELECO MMUNICATION AND POWER CABLE ACCESSORIES ETC. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2011-12 ON 30/11/2011, DECLARING TOTA L INCOME AT RS.1,76,28,267/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS FI LED A REVISED RETURN ON 19/03/2013 AND DECLARED TOTAL INCOME AT R S.2,10,24,867/- THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASS ESEE HAS NOT INCLUDED EXCISE DUTY IN THE VALUATION OF CLOSING S TOCK OF RAW MATERIAL AND WORKING PROGRESS, HOWEVER IT HAS INCLUDED THE E XCISE DUTY IN VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF FINISHED GOODS. THE L D. AO REFERRING TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 145A OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED EXCISE DUTY COMPONENT OF PURCHASE PRICE OF RAW MATERIAL, WHILE VALUING CLOSING STOCK OF RAW MATERIAL, WORKING PROGRESS AND FINISHED GOODS AND ACCORDINGLY , CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY, THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK SHALL NOT BE REJECTED AND REVALUED, AS PER THE PROV ISION OF SECTION 145A OF THE I.T.ACT 1961. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSE CLAIMED THAT NON INCLUSION OF EXCISE DUTY WILL HAVE NO EFFECT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE AO, HOWEVER, DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, BY TAKING NOTE OF AMO UNT OF EXCISE DUTY PAID ON PURCHASES, REVALUED CLOSING STOCK AND MADE ITA NO.4329/MUM/2018 RAYCHEM RPG PVT.LTD. 3 ADJUSTMENT OF RS.65,89,009/- TOWARDS VALUE OF CLOSI NG STOCK, AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 145A OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. 4. THE ASSESEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. THE LD.CIT(A) FOR THE DETAI LED REASONS RECORDED IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER, HELD THAT ADJUSTME NT MADE BY THE LD. AO FOR AY 2010-11 HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY TH E ASSESSEE, BECAUSE THE SAME RESULTED INTO REDUCTION OF TOTAL I NCOME, HOWEVER WHEN THE ADJUSTMENT MADE TOWARDS VALUATION OF CLOSI NG STOCK RESULTED IN INCREASING TAXABLE INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHOSEN TO CHALLENGE THE SAME BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES , WITHOUT FOLLOWING CONSISTENCY IN ITS APPROACH. ACCORDINGLY, HE REJECTED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED ADDITIONS M ADE BY THE LD. AO TOWARDS REVALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. SIMILARLY, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS REJECTED ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSE, SEEKING REDUCTION FROM TOTAL INCOME TOWARDS SUO-MOTO DISALLOWANCES OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF, ON THE GROUND THAT THE FACTS WI TH REGARD TO ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT B EFORE THE LD. AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FURTHER, IT I S NOT A LEGAL CLAIM, WHICH CAN BE ENTERTAINED AT APPELLATE STAGE AND ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSE. HE , FURTHER STATED THAT ALTHOUGH, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS CONSID ERED THE ISSUE OF BELATED PAYMENTS OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO P F IN LIGHT OF PROVISION OF SECTION 36(1)(VA), RWS 43B, BUT THE H ONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GUJARAT STATE RO AD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 41 TAXMANN.COM 100, AFTER CONSIDERING T HE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS M/S.AL OM EXTRUSIONS LTD 319 ITR 306 HELD THAT THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE EMPLOYEES C ONTRIBUTION TO ITA NO.4329/MUM/2018 RAYCHEM RPG PVT.LTD. 4 PF. ACCORDINGLY, REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE LD.CIT(A) ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 5. THE FIRST ISSUE THAT CAME UP FOR OUR CONSIDERATI ON FROM GROUND NO.1 OF ASSESSEE APPEAL IS ADDITION U/S 145A OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 AMOUNTING TO RS.65,89,009/- TOWARDS REVALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK, AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 145A OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVER ED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESEE BY THE DECISION OF ITAT, MUMABI IN ASSESSEE OWN CASE FOR AY 2007-08 IN ITA NO.4780/MUM/2013, WHERE UNDER IDE NTICAL SET OF FACTS, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF T HE LD. AO TO RECONSIDER THE ISSUE, IN LIGHT OF DECISION OF HONB LE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS MAHAVIR ALLUMINIUM LTD. ( 200 8) 297 ITR 77 (DELHI). HE, FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH, THE L D. AO HAS ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE ITAT HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT HE DID NOT ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF THE ITAT WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS. THE LD. AR, FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT IN SUBSEQUENT AYS, THE LD. AO HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED VA LUATION OF CLOSING STOCK WITHOUT CONSIDERING EXCISE DUTY COMPO NENT AND HENCE, THERE IS NO REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE SETTLED POS ITION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, UNLESS ANY CHANGES IN FACTS. 6. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY, SUPPORT ING ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONVE NIENTLY IGNORED THE METHOD OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK, AS PER T HE PROVISION OF SECTION 145A, WHEN IT HAS RESULTED IN REDUCTION OF TOTAL INCOME, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO ENHANCING THE TOTAL INCOME, IT HAS CHALLENGED SAID VALUATION. THE LD. DR, FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE SHOULD BE A CONSISTENCY ON THE ISSUE, HOWEVER THE ASSESS HAS TA KEN A DIFFERENT ITA NO.4329/MUM/2018 RAYCHEM RPG PVT.LTD. 5 STAND IN DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS, EVEN THOUGH FA CTS FOR BOTH ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE COMMON. THEREFORE, THE LD.CIT( A) AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT FACTS HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE AND HIS ORDER SHOULD BE UPHELD. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF ITAT, MUMABI IN ASSES SEE OWN CASE FOR AY 2007-08 HAD CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE AN D BY FOLLOWING TRIBUNAL ORDER FOR AY 2005-06 AND 2006-07 HAS SET A SIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO TO RECONSIDER, IN LIGHT O F THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF ITO VS MAH AVIR ALLUMINIUM LTD. (SUPRA). THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE AS UNDER:- 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIE S AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS COULD BE SEEN, THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS ADJUSTMENT TO BE MADE TO THE VALUE OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF GOODS AND INVENTORY BY INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF TAX, DUTY, CES S, ETC., ACTUALLY PAID OR INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED, IDENT ICAL DISPUTE IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE AROSE IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN FACT , AS NOTED BY US, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS FOLLOWED HIS OWN ORDER P ASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. AS COULD BE SEEN, THE ADJUSTMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 145A WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN A SSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07. IN BOTH THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEARS , THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE H ON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN MAHAVIR ALUMINIUM LTD. (SUPRA) AS WELL AS OTHER DEC ISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL ON THE ISSUE. FACTS BEING MATERIALLY SAME, CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND 2006- 07, WE RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING AFRESH KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY T HE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN MAHAVIR ALUMINIUM LTD. (SUPRA) AND OTHER D ECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AS REFERRED T O ABOVE. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND CONSISTENT WITH V IEW TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THA T FOR THIS YEAR ALSO, THE ISSUE NEEDS TO GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO TO DECIDE THE ITA NO.4329/MUM/2018 RAYCHEM RPG PVT.LTD. 6 ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUN AL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF HONBLE D ELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAHAVIR ALLUMINIUM LTD (SUPRA). HENC E, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO. 9. THE NEXT ISSUE THAT CAME UP FOR OUR CONSIDERATIO N FROM GROUND 2 OF ASSESSEE APPEAL IS DISALLOWANCES U/S 36(1) (VA ) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 AMOUNTING TO RS.5,38,071/-, IN RESPECT OF DELA YED PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF. THE FACTS WITH REGARD TO THE IMPUGNED DISPUTE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SUO-MOTO DIS ALLOWANCES TOWARDS LATE PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF IN THE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME. HOWEVER, IT HAS FILED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), IN LIGHT OF CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, INCLUDING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CITVS M/S. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD 319 ITR 306 AND ARGUED THAT BEL ATED PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF IS ELIGIBLE FOR DED UCTION U/S 36(1)(VA) R.W.S 43B, IF SUCH PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN PAID ON OR B EFORE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME. THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THA T THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND RE QUIRES FACTUAL VERIFICATION AND HENCE, THE SAME CANNOT BE ADMITTED AT APPELLATE STAGE. 10. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE D ECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF G.K. SE CURITIES SERVICES PVT.LTD. VS DCIT (2019) 261 TAXMANN.CO 152 (BOM), WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSEE FILED A REVISION PE TITION RAISING CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO PF, WHICH WAS ERRONEOUSLY ITA NO.4329/MUM/2018 RAYCHEM RPG PVT.LTD. 7 NOT CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ALL PAYMENTS TOWARDS EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF HAD B EEN MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME, T HE COMMISSIONER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO ENTERTAINED ASSESS EES CLAIM ON MERITS. HE, FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN ON MERITS, IT IS SETTLED POSITION NOW, BECAUSE THE ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE H ONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD, WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT EVEN, IF PAYMENT TOWARDS EMPLOYE ES CONTRIBUTION TO PF IS MADE AFTER DUE DATE SPECIFIED UNDER RESPEC TIVE ACT, BUT SUCH PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME, THEN THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE U/S 36 (1) (VA) R.W.S. 43B OF THE ACT. 11. THE LD. DR, ON OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS MADE A CLAIM FOR THE TIME BEFORE THE LD. LD.CIT(A), EVEN THOUGH IT HAS SUO-MOTO DISALLOWED BELATED PAYMENTS TOWARDS E MPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF IN THE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME . THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT FACTS HAS RIGHTLY REJE CTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS ORDER SHOULD BE UPHELD. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS A SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT NO TAXES CAN BE COLLEC TED UNLESS BY THE AUTHORITY OF LAW. FURTHER, EVEN IF ASSESSEE MAKES W RONG CLAIM OR NOT MADE A CLAIM, BUT THE LD. AO IS DUTY BOUND TO COMPU TE TRUE AND CORRECT TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSE HAS SUO-MOTO DISALLOWED DELAYED PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEE CONTRIBUTION TO PF, ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID PAYMENTS ARE NOT ALLOWABLE AS PER PROVISION OF ITA NO.4329/MUM/2018 RAYCHEM RPG PVT.LTD. 8 SECTION 36(1) (VA)/43B OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. HOWEVE R, AT LATER POINT OF TIME, THE LAW HAS BEEN EVOLVED BY THE HONBLE SUPRE ME COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. (SUPRA), WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTIONS TOWARD S DELAYED PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF, IF SUCH PA YMENTS ARE MADE ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FURNISHING RETURN OF INCOME. FURTHER, ON THE BASIS OF CHANGES IN LAW BY THE DECI SION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A FRESH CLAIM BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) FOR DEDUCTIONS TOWARDS EMPLOYEES CONTRIBU TION TO PF, BUT THE LD.CIT(A) HAD REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE . WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF G.K. SEC URITY SERVICES PVT. LIMITED VS DCIT (SUPRA) HAD CONSIDERED AN IDE NTICAL ISSUE AND HELD THAT WHERE, THE ASSESSEE FILED A REVISION PET ITION RAISING CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF, WHIC H WAS ERRONEOUSLY NOT CLAIMED IN RETURN OF INCOME, IN VIE W OF THE FACT THAT ALL PAYMENTS TOWARDS EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF H AD BEEN MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE FILING RETURN OF INCOME, THE C OMMISSIONER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO ENTERTAIN ASSESEE CL AIM ON MERITS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE L D.CIT(A) WAS ERRED IN NOT ENTERTAINING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE. 13. COMING BACK TO THE ISSUE ON MERITS. THE ASSESSE HAS FILED PROOF OF PAYMENTS OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF B EFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHICH IS AVAILABLE PAPER BOOK FILED BY T HE ASSESEE. FURTHER, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS EXTRACTED, THE DETAILS O F PAYMENTS MADE TO PF IN ITS APPELLATE ORDER AT PARA 7 ON PAGE 12 AND 13, AND AS PER THE SAID CHART, ALTHOUGH THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MAD E AFTER DUE DATES SPECIFIED UNDER RESPECTIVE ACT, BUT ALL PAYME NTS HAVE BEEN MADE ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE OF FURNISHING RETURN OF INCOME. ITA NO.4329/MUM/2018 RAYCHEM RPG PVT.LTD. 9 THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE I SSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT, I N THE CASE OF CIT VS ALOM EXTURSIONS LTD.(SUPRA). HOWEVER, THE DE TAILS OF PAYMENTS OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF WAS NOT MA DE AVAILABLE TO THE LD.AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ALTHOUGH, THE SAME WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). THEREFORE , WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ISSUE NEEDS TO GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO FOR LIMITED PURPOSE OF VERIFICATION OF PAYMENT TO ASCERTAIN, WHETHER ALL PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE ON OR BEFORE DU E DATE OF FURNISHING RETURN OF INCOME OR NOT. IF THE LD. AO F OUND THAT ALL PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE OF FU RNISHING RETURN OF INCOME, THEN THE LD. AO IS DIRECTED TO AL LOW THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 13 /12 /2019 SD/- ( RAVISH SOOD ) SD/- ( G. MANJUNATHA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 13/12/2019 THIRUMALESH SR.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. ITA NO.4329/MUM/2018 RAYCHEM RPG PVT.LTD. 10 BY ORDER, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//