TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (9) TMI 1135
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed in law as well as on fact in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act. 2. Ld. PCIT erred in law as well as on fact in holding that assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. 3. Ld. PCIT erred in law as well as on fact in passing order u/s. 263 of the Act setting aside assessment order passed by assessing officer u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The appellant curves leave to amend, alter, modify and/or raise additional ground of appeal." 3. The brief facts of the case are that the original assessment was completed on 10-12-2019. Thereafter, Principal CIT initiated proceedings u/s 263 of the Act on the ground that the assessee firm had claimed total provident fund expenses amounting to  ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of Rs,89,63,866/- including employees contribution of Provident Fund of Rs.42,40,977/-. The details of bifurcation as per challan are as under:- xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx As the employee's contribution of Provident Fund is deducted from the salary of employees on monthly basis, therefore, the employee's contribution fund totaling of Rs.42,40,977/- is not an allowable expenditure as claimed by the assessee. The Assessee should not have claimed the employee's contribution of Provident Fund which is deducted from the salary of employe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the revenue within the meaning of the provisions of section 263 of the Act. On reading of section 2(24)(x), it is categorical and clear that the contribution received by the assessee from the employee alone was treated as income for the purpose of section 36(1)(va) and therefore, the assessee is entitled to get deduction for the sum received by the assessee towards contribution to the fund or funds so mentioned was credited by the assessee on or before the due date to the in the relevant fund as provided under Explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Act." Vide order No. WSU/9(l)2013 setttlement dated 08. 01.2016 of Employees' Provident Fund Organization, grace period of 5 days has been removed w.e.f. Contribution for month of January, 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....osition of law, reliance is also placed on following judicial decisions wherein the action u/s. 263 were upheld in the circumstances when the assessments were completed without conducting proper inquiries. a. CJT v. Pushpa Devi [1987] 164 ITR 639 [l988] 29 Taxman 377 (Pat). b. CIT v. Seshasayee Paper & Boards Ltd. [2000] 242 ITR 490/108 Taxman 464 (Mad.). c. CIT, Patiala v. Hirnachal Pradesh Financial Corpn. [2010] 186 Taxman 186(HP). d. CIT. Dehradun v. Sunil Goyal [2005)] 176 Taxman 184 (Uttarakhand). e. CJT v. Modi Brother [2007] 164 Taxman 331 (MP). f Mammlal Matadeen v. C!T[2006] 152 Taxman 125 (all.). g. CJT v. Bhagwan Das [2005] 142 Taxman 1 (All). h. Gee Fee Enterprises ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ibution of Provident fund and also not verified the payments made by the assessee firm towards the Provident Fund after due date as prescribed in section36(1)(va) of the I,T. Act, 1981. 8. I, therefore, hold that the assessment order dated 10.12.2019 finalized by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue within the meaning of section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and hence the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) dated 10.12.2019 is hereby aside to the above extent of observations at Para-5. The Assessing Officer is directed to reframe the assessment afresh after properly verifying the above aspects and after giving the assessee a reasonable....