Appeal partially allowed; CIT(A) decisions upheld on employee PF & ESI, tax provisions. Consultancy charges issue remanded.

The appeal was partly allowed with the bench upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on the first two issues regarding the addition of employee contributions to PF & ESI and the applicability of tax provisions. However, the issue of disallowance of consultancy charges was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration due to inadequate opportunity for the Assessing Officer to review additional evidence.

---

---

Issues:
1. Addition of employee's contribution to PF & ESI beyond prescribed time limit.
2. Applicability of Section 43B vs. Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the IT Act.
3. Disallowance of consultancy charges without providing opportunity under Rule 46-A.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Addition of employee's contribution to PF & ESI beyond prescribed time limit
The appeal addressed whether the deletion of the addition of Rs. 13,62,84,653/- for depositing the employee's contribution to PF & ESI beyond the prescribed time limit was justified. The CIT(A) ruled in favor of the assessee, citing precedents and legal provisions. The Rajasthan High Court's decision supported the assessee's case, emphasizing that payments made before the due date of filing the return of income are allowable deductions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court and Delhi High Court decisions further reinforced this stance. The bench upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's grounds of appeal.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 43B vs. Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the IT Act
The interlinked grounds of appeal questioned the applicability of Section 43B and Section 36(1)(va) regarding the employee's contribution to PF & ESI. The CIT(A) held that if payments were made before the due date of filing the return of income, deductions could not be denied. Citing various court decisions and legal provisions, the CIT(A) justified the allowance of deductions. The bench found no contrary material and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, dismissing the revenue's grounds of appeal.

Issue 3: Disallowance of consultancy charges without providing opportunity under Rule 46-A
The issue involved the deletion of Rs. 22,02,715 disallowed as consultancy charges without providing an opportunity under Rule 46-A. The CIT(A) allowed this ground, stating that the expenses were related to the business and not capital in nature. The bench, however, noted that the additional evidence was entertained without adequate opportunity for the Assessing Officer. In the interest of justice, the issue was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

In conclusion, the appeal was partly allowed for statistical purposes, with the bench upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions on the first two issues while remanding the third issue back to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration.

---