TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (9) TMI 1755
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the reasons on which the assessment was reopened was based on vague & incorrect information and in that view of the matter the reopening of assessment suffered from fundamental infirmity and hence the impugned order deserves to be cancelled. b) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, when no addition was permissible nor was it made by the AO pursuant to the reasons which were recorded u/s 147 for reopening the assessment, then the AO did not hold valid jurisdiction to continue with the reopened assessment and thereby make additions on entirely different grounds than the recorded reasons; and in that view of the matter the assessment framed u/s 147 was ab-initio void &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s erroneously done by the AO. c) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the lower authorities erred in not allowing deduction for prior period expenses of Rs. 23,34,965/- while computing profits of business. d) For that on the facts and circumstances of the case, the AO be directed to not only delete the double disallowance of Rs. 23,34,965/- added to the assessable income but also separately allow deduction for prior period expenses of Rs. 23,34,965/-. 4. For that the appellant craves leave to submit additional grounds and/or amend or alter the grounds already taken either at the time of hearing of the appeal or before. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the return of income was filed on 22.11.2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at page 2 of the assessment order has tabulated the due date of deposit and actual date of deposit of the employees' contribution towards provident fund which was deposited after expiry of due date mentioned in the Provident Fund Act. The contribution works out to Rs. 13,30,802/- which was deposited later and in view of the provision of section 2(24)(x) read with Section 36(1)(va) a sum of Rs. 13,30,802/- was treated as the assessee's income and added back in the computation of income. However, instead of adding it to the business income, the same has been treated as income from other sources. The assessee disputed the addition before the Ld. Addl./Jt. CIT(A). However, in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Checkma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e date. However, since the assessee was treating the same as allowable expenditure u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act, the disallowance made u/s 36(1)(va) falls under Chapter IV-D for computation of business income and since it is an allowable expenditure under the head income from business if such sum is credited by the assessee in the employees' account in the relevant fund or fund on or before the due date, therefore, the disallowance, if any, can only be made while computing the income referred to section 28 of the Act as provided u/s 36(1). Hence, the addition of Rs. 13,30,802/- made by the AO under the head income from other sources will be substituted by disallowing the expenditure u/s 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act and would ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....re not allowable u/s 36(1)(va) and are disallowed on account of non-fulfillment of the conditions specified therein, further resort cannot be had to the general provisions of section 37(1) of the Act for allowing the delayed payment of employees' contribution to PF & ESI and this ground of appeal is dismissed. 10. Ground no. 3(a), (b), (c) and (d) relates to double disallowance of Rs. 23,34,965/- being prior period expenses. Before us, in the computation of income for AY 2014-15 filed it was stated that the assessee had suo-moto disallowed such expenses and further disallowance by the AO amounted to double addition. Annexure 2 to the document filed in the course of appeal at page 17 is a computation of total income for the AY 2014-15 and....