Badhwar Automotive P.Ltd, Rohtak V. ACIT, Rohtak circle, Rohtak

ITA 6190/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7904 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: NAMAN ARORA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6190/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16 BADHWAR AUTOMOTIVE P. LTD., VS. ACIT, ROHTAK CIRCL E, SONEPAT ROAD, ROHTAK ROHTAK HARYANA (PAN: AACCB9426G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. NAMAN ARORA, CA REVENUE BY : SH. SL ANURAGI, SR. DR. ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 30.7.2018 OF THE LD. CIT(A), ROHTAK PERTAINING TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THUS BASED HIS DECISION ON FACTUALLY INCORRECT FINDINGS. II) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTING TO INR 1,98,836/- ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY IN DEPOSIT OF EMPLOYEES 2 CONTRIBUTION TO ESI AND EPF WITHIN THE SPECIFIED DU E DATES UNDER THE RELEVANT STATUTE, THOUGH THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED BEFORE FILING OF TAX RETURN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT IT MAY BE ALLOWED TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AR E NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEAT ED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE STATED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THUS BASED HIS DECISI ON ON FACTUALLY INCORRECT FINDINGS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,98,836/- ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY IN DEPOSIT IN EMPLOYEES CONTRIBU TION TO ESI AND EPF WITHIN THE SPECIFIED DUE DATES UNDER THE RELEV ANT STATUTES, THOUGH THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED BEFORE FILING OF TAX RETURN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED T HAT ASSESSEES CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE ITA T, H BENCH, NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF UNIVERSAL PRECISION SCREWS VS . ACIT, NEW DELHI WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES . 3 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, BUT COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE CONTENTION RAIS ED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. I FIND THAT IN THIS CASE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,98,836/- ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY IN DEPOSIT IN EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO ESI AND EPF WITHIN THE SPECIFIED DUE DATES UNDER THE RELEVANT STATUTES, T HOUGH THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED BEFORE FILING OF TAX RETURN FOR THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND SIMILARLY, LD. CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO. HOWEVER, I FIND THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ITAT, H BENCH, NEW DELHI IN THE CASE OF UNIVERSA L PRECISION SCREWS VS. ACIT, NEW DELHI VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 8.2.2015 P ASSED IN ITA NO. 2034(DELHI) OF 2013 (AY 2009-10) HAS DECIDED THE CA SE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT C ONSIDERED THIS DECISION WHILE MAKING AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO VERI FY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ANVIL OF THE ITAT, H BENCH, NEW D ELHI DECISION IN THE CASE OF UNIVERSAL PRECISION SCREWS VS. ACIT, NE W DELHI DATED 8.2.2015 PASSED IN ITA NO. 2034(DELHI) OF 2013 (AY 2009-10) AND DECIDE THE SAME, AFRESH, AS PER LAW, AFTER GIVING A DEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE DOCUMENTS / EVIDEN CES TO BE FILED BY 4 THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECT ED TO FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE AO IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND DID NO T TAKE NAY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT AND FILE ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS / EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23-04-2019. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :23-04-2019 SR BHATANGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.