TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (10) TMI 603
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uring the course of scrutiny assessment, the A.O. noticed that as per Annexure - 6 of Form No. 3CD, the TDS of Rs. 1040/- on contractor's payment is not paid within the prescribed due date as per section 200(1) of the Act. The A.O. observed that the date of deduction was 31-01-2007 whereas the payment is made on 7-6-2007. The A.O. was of the firm belief that since the assessee company has failed to comply with the provisions of Chapter XVII-B of the Act, the corresponding expenditure amounting to Rs. 46,429/- is disallowable u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and accordingly added the same to the total income of the assessee. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee reiterated that the TDS so deducted has been deposited with the Government account on 7-6-2007 and as per the amended provisions of section 40(a)(ia) of the Act, the TDS has been deposited well before the due date of filing of return. The ld. CIT(A) was not convinced with the submissions of the assessee and confirmed the addition. 4. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated what has been stated before the lower authorities. 5. We find from the assessment record that the return of income was filed by the assessee on 31-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ering the facts on record, we find that the payments have been made well before filing of the return. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court at the occasion to decide this issue in the case of P M Electronics ltd reported in 177 Taxman 1. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court had the occasion to answer the following question :- "In response to the notice and on examination of the details submitted by the assessee with respect to provident fund payments made both on account of employer's and employees' share revealed that payments in the sum of Rs. 17,94,042/- were late as per the provisions of section 36(1)(va) read with section 2(24)(x) and section 43B. Consequently, the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction and added a sum of Rs. 17,94,042/- towards EPF contribution. The Hon'ble Court, thus held:- "12. We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning of the Madras High Court in Nexus Computer (P) Ltd.'s case (supra). Judicial discipline requires us to follow the view of the Supreme Court in Vinay Cement Ltd.'s case (supra) as also the view of the Division Bench of this Court In Dharmendra Sharma's case (supra). 13. In these circumstances, we respectfully disagree with the approach adopted....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that due to some error in the EXEL Sheet, the depreciation could not be claimed properly. It was further explained by the ld. Counsel for the assessee that in the revised return, the assessee has claimed further depreciation on account of higher initial depreciation. 14. The ld. D.R. supported the orders of the lower authorities. 15. We have carefully perused the orders of lower authorities and the depreciation chart filed by the assessee in the paper book. In our considered view, this issue needs further verification. The ld. CIT(A) has already directed the A.O. to verify the claim of the assessee to the extent of explanation given by the assessee. Modifying the directions of the ld. CIT(A), we restore this issue back to the file of the A.O. and direct the AO to verify the claim of depreciation and also the claim of initial depreciation as per the provisions of Income Tax Act after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to substantiate its claim by filing proper details before the A.O. Ground No. 2 is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose. 16. Now, we shall take up the Revenue....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unal. 19. The ld. D.R. strongly contended that if the directions of the ld. CIT(A) are followed, revaluation of opening stock will lead to chain reactions in earlier years whereby valuation of closing and opening stock in earlier years will be needed to be redone in keeping with the accountancy principle that opening stock is to be identical with closing stock of the preceding year. 20. Per contra, the ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated submissions what has been submitted before the lower authorities. 21. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the A.O. has made addition by discussing this issue at para 6.1 and 6.2 of the assessment order. At para 6.1, the A.O. noted that the unutilized Cenvat balance is amounting to Rs. 55,83,968/-. At para 6.2, the A.O. has given a categorical finding that in the assessment order for A.Y. 2006-07 (preceding A.Y) passed on 26-12- 2008, addition of similar nature amounting to Rs. 31,78,410/- was made to the value of inventories. The A.O. further gave a finding that the opening stock for the year under consideration stands increased by the said amount. According to the A.O., after giving credit for the said increase, the net addition on....