2018 (4) TMI 1789

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....llowing grievance:- "In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer for Rs. 2,39,822/- on account of delay in deposit of employee's contribution to Provident Fund and ESI u/s 2(24)(x) r.w.s. 36(1)(va) of the Act, even though the same was deposited before the due date of filing the return. The Assessing Officer may be directed to delete this addition." 3. Learned representatives fairly agree that the aforesaid issue is squarely covered against the assessee by Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court's judgment in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, 366 ITR 170 (Guj.), wherein it is categorically hel....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition amounting to Rs. 2,18,090/- pertaining to prior period expenses made by the Assessing Officer, when no such disallowance is called for 2.2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in overlooking the fact that the amount of prior period expenditure is minor in nature in comparison with the aggregate expenditure running into crores of rupees. He ought to have directed Assessing Officer to delete disallowance so made. 2.3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the learned CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that TDS pertaining to the security expenses conside....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ing observations : "2. Main question is sum of Rs. 67.88 Iacs (rounded off) which the Assessing Officer and CIT(Appeals) disallowed treating the expenditure as a prior period expenditure. The Tribunal reversed the findings of the Revenue authorities primarily on two grounds. Firstly, that the assessee being a company was charged uniformly for all years and would therefore, have no revenue implication of whether the expenditure was recognised in this assessment year or earlier year. The second ground was that in any case, the Revenue had recognised the prior period income. If that be so, according to the Tribunal, it would be unfair not to recognise the expenditure also of the prior period. 3. Having heard learned counsel f....