TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (7) TMI 383
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the case and real nature of transaction involved. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by confirming the same. 2. In his order, the Ld. AO has made an addition of Rs. 1,56,954/- u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)x for delay in deposit of employees contribution to PF and ESI without considering the facts and case laws on record. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by confirming the same. 3. In his order, the Ld. AO has made an addition of Rs. 3,32,000/- out of ROC expense for increase in authorised share capital without considering the facts of the case and real nature of transaction involved. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by confirming the same. 4. Any other grounds shall be submitted at the time of hearing." 3. Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee relates to addition of Rs. 96,47,549/- u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act, as deemed dividend for trade advance received from associate company. 4. Brief facts of the issue in dispute are stated as under. During the course of assessment proceedings on verification of the details furnished by the assessee, it was noticed by the Assessing officer that assessee company had received financial advances of Rs. 4,23,25,000/- from M/....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d amount to the tune of Rs. 2,12,64,639/- relates to advances received from customers. The Ld. Counsel to support of his contention, filed simple copies of sale bills, purchase bills, different challans in the last two or three years to prove that assessee-company had transactions of general trading. These evidences, were filed before the assessing officer and ld. CIT(A). Therefore, Ld. Counsel prayed the Bench that current account transactions should not come in the ambit of provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Ld. Counsel, to bolster his arguments, also relied on the judgement of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Gujarat in the case of Shripad Concrete Pvt. Ltd. (Tax Appeal No. 208 of 2013, dated 03.04.2013). 8. On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 9. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case including the findings of th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... separate accounts. One was for the purpose of financial transactions and other account was for business transactions. During the year under consideration the assessee had sold goods of Rs. 12.15 lacs to Shripad Conchem Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 35.75 lacs to Shripad Construction. Separate accounts for the sale were maintained. As and when the assessee company needed the funds, it obtained amount on various dates. The assessee company was manufacturing concrete mix and major part of the goods were sold to the, said companies. CIT (Appeals) therefore, allowed the assessee's appeal and reversed the decision of the Assessing Officer. The Revenue, thereupon, approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal confirmed the view of the CIT(Appeals), making following observations: "6. We have perused the orders of the authorities below and gone through the cases relied upon by the appellant. The Ld. A.O. attracted the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the IT Act on loan of Rs. 35,50,000/- but the appellant has established that these are business transactions. The appellant sold has established that these are business transactions. The appellant sold goods of Rs. 12,15,513/- to M/s. Shripat Conche....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ltd. (supra), we delete the addition to the tune of Rs. 96,47,541/-. Thus, ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 11. Ground No. 2 raised by the assessee relates to addition of Rs. 1,56,954/- under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act, for delay in depositing of employees' contribution of PF and ESI. 12. We have heard both the parties on this ground and note that issue under consideration is no longer res integra. The issue relating to delay in depositing of employees' contribution of PF and ESI, is squarely covered against the assessee by the judgment of Jurisdictional Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC)41 taxmann.com 100 (Guj). The relevant findings of the Hon'ble court are reproduced below: "8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, and considering section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with sub-clause (x) of clause 24 of section 2, it is held that with respect to the sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section (2) applies, the assessee shall be entitled to deduction in comput....