2022 (3) TMI 1409

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... and the circumstances of the case:- "1. The Id. CIT(A), NFAC was not justified in confirming the enhancement of returned income in the intimation u/s. 143(1) by adjusting and Disallowing:- a) Employer's and Employee's contribution to State Insurance Corporation and Provident Fund aggregating to Rs.3,79,350/-which was not paid before the due date but paid before the due date of filing of return of income u/s.139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. b) The interest aggregating to Rs.1,93,532/- paid during the year but pertains to A.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15. Details as tabulated:- Sr. No Particulars A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 1. Interest on VAT 83,768 19,600 2. Interest on CST 20,133 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ntribution made by employees of Employees State Insurance Corporation and Provident Fund of Rs. 3,79,350/- for the Financial Year 2016-17. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assesse filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assesse. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assesse on the ground that there was delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) as there was no affidavit filed by the assesse to explain the reason of the delay in filing the appeal. Therefore, the Ld. AR further submitted that the issue in the present assessment is related to upholding addition of Rs.3,79,350/- under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act in respect of delay in payments of Employee's....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed that the CIT(A) was not justified in adding Rs. 4,95,540/- paid towards the rate difference in LPG Cylinder being debited in past years expenses but determined and ascertained during the F.Y. 2016-17. 7. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the CIT (A). 8. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that there was delay in filing appeal before the CIT(A) and no affidavit for explaining the delay was filed by the assessee before the CIT(A). But the submissions which were submitted before the CIT(A) and quoted on para 4 of the order of the CIT(A), the assesse has given the explanation for the delay in filing the appeal. From the perusal of order it cannot be seen t....