TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (6) TMI 357
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee had a turnover of Rs. 1,51,54,606/- and therefore, the assessee was required to get its accounts audited u/s 44AB of the Act and furnish tax audit report. No such tax audit report was furnished before the specified date and accordingly a show cause notice for levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Act was issued. In response to notice it was mainly stated that as per clarification issued by the CBDT tax audit report etc. were not required to be attached with the return and accordingly the same was not furnished. The Assessing Officer did not accept the submissions by observing that though the tax audit report is not required to be attached with the return of income but this would apply in case the return was furnished within stipulated pe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nts of the assessee stating that the policy of C.B.D.T. is applicable only if the return is filed by the assessee within the stipulated time. 4.1 Notification and circulars are issued from time to time by the CBDT clarifying certain procedural rules and regulations in respect of various provisions of the Income Tax Act. However, such circulars etc. are only clarificatory in nature, and are never intended to substitute the substantive law/statute. These clarifications thus operate within the broad framework of the legal provisions as provided by the Income Tax Act. The clarification issued by the CBDT as relied upon by the Appellant is applicable in a case where the return of income is filed on or before the due date. The purpose of clari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filing of its return of income on due date, the appellant was under an obligation to get its accounts audited and furnish the audit report before the specified date. The appellant has, however, failed to do so. It cannot now take the plea that though it had filed its return of income late, it had got its accounts audited before the due date. The simple fact remains that the appellant has misinterpreted the clarification of the CBDT to its undue advantage and has failed to furnish the audit report before the specified date. By not furnishing the audit report within the statutory time limit, the appellant has failed to comply with the statutory requirements under the Income Tax Act. None of the case laws relied upon by the appellant case help....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the ld. CIT(A). 8. Appeal of the assessee is dismissed. ITA No. 1216/Chd/2011 9 In this appeal following grounds have been raised by the assessee: "1 That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the Appellate without going through the facts and circumstances of the case. 2 That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is illegal and contrary to the facts and circumstances. 3 On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 1,02,20,877/- out of freight expenses invoking the provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the I.T. Act 1961 by rejecting the explanation of the appellant. Therefo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....u) 869000 3 Sh. Prem Kaistha S/o. Sh. Jhavai Ram, Vill. Vagiynda P.O. Gidi (Kullu) 752000 4 Sh. Parveen Kumar S/o Sh. Dhayan Singh, Vill. Matyoda P.O. Gidi (Kullu) 817000 5 Sh. Raman Sufar S/o Sh. Jwala Sufar ,Vill. Gagarnala P.O. Diyar Distt. Kullu H.P. 890000 6 Sh. Man Chand S/o Sh. Jindu Ram, VPO Jari, Distt .Kullu H.P. 947000 7 Sh. Gulab Singh S/o Sh. Jagat Ram, Vill Matiura, P.O. Haru Distt. Kullu H.P. 540000 8 Sh. Keshav Ram S/o Sh. Hans Raj , VPO Bhuntar , Distt. Kullu H.P. 920000 9 Sh. Megh Singh Thakur S/o Sh. Jog Dhian Thakur , C/o Hotel Shobla, Kullu H.P. 889000 10 M/s Beas Co-Op TPT Co. Ltd. , VPO Dhalpur , Distt. Kullu H.P. 2680877 Total ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he amounts remain payable at the end of the year, has been over ruled by Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT V. Sikandar Khan (supra). Further even Hon'ble Calcutta High Court has reversed the decision of Special Bench in case of CIT V. Crescent Export Syndicate (Cal). Respectfully following the above order, we decide this appeal against the assessee. 16 Ground No. 4 - After hearing both the parties we find that during assessment proceedings the AO noticed that the assessee has claimed a sum of Rs. 1,12,274/- on account of PF deduction. The assessee was asked to file the details of deduction and details of payment of PF dues. In response it was stated that PF was deducted by Abir Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. from the bills of the assess....