TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 1915
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... - "1. BECAUSE the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, (NFAC), Delhi has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- on account of disallowance of provision for audit fees. 2. BECAUSE the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center, (NFAC), Delhi is not correct in confirming the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- on account of provision for audit fee by taking an erroneous view that the assessee should have claimed it in the year in which the liability got crystallized and that the assessee had not been able to provide any evidence to prove that the liability for payment of audit fees crystalized in the relevant previous year. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ice. 8. BECAUSE the appellant craves leave to alter, amend or withdraw all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before the hearing of appeal." 2. The assessee has also taken an additional ground that reads as under: - "Ground no. 9 Because, without prejudice to the grounds hereinfore, the authorities below have grossly erred in computing/confirming the quantum of dis-allowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 at Rs. 68,44,058/-, whereas, on a correct computation, the amount of disallowance could not have exceeded Rs. 48,42,418/- and consequently the disallowance deserves to be restricted to Rs. 48,42,418/-." 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case the assessee is a co-operative ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es and a sum of Rs. 22,66,340/- as made towards gratuity fund scheme. However, the expenses claimed in respect of the provisions for audit fee and the EPF expenses was sustained and other liability of Rs. 17,15,259/- was also deleted. Aggrieved against this, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 4. Grounds No. 1 to 4 are against sustaining an addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- being claimed as provisions for audit fee. Grounds no. 5, 6 and 9 are against sustaining an addition in respect of EPF contributions amounting to Rs. 68,44,058/-. Rest of the grounds namely i.e. 7 & 8 are general in nature and require no separate adjudication. Apropos to the grounds no. 1 to 4, Ld Authorized Representative of the assessee reiterated the submissi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ccrued when it actually crystallized and is ascertainable would legally be enforceable. The assessee is following Mercantile System of Accounting and therefore the assessee should have claimed the same in the year it crystallized. The assessee has not been able to furnish any evidence regarding the fact that it crystallized during the relevant year. During the course of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee conceded the fact that the services were not rendered in the year under consideration. In fact the audit is related to the year under consideration. Therefore, looking to the past history such provision has been made and is allowable. Undisputedly, such practice the assessee making provision for audit fee has been made and earlier ye....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....prior period expenses. The ground is partly allowed. 6. Grounds no. 5, 6 & 9 are related to disallowance of belated EPF contribution the Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, contended that the lower authorities have failed to verify the correct figure and made disallowance without considering it in right perspective. He drew our attention to the EPF contributions deposit details which is enclosed with paper books for the financial year 2012-13, relevant to assessment year under consideration. As per this, the total delayed amount is stated to be Rs. 48,42,418/- only. 7. On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative ("DR") has no objection, if, the matter is restored to the Assessing Officer with regard to the verifyin....