TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (10) TMI 502
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ke necessary steps to prefer the appeal before the Tribunal. However, during the relevant period the Managing Partner of the assessee who is solely responsible for looking after the taxation, finance and legal matters was suffering from serious health issues. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee thus submitted that due to his ill-health and under medical care he was unable to attend day-to-day business affairs including coordination with the Tax Consultant for filing the appeal before the Tribunal. He has referred to the medical certificate and submitted that the Managing Partner was advised rest by the Doctor and therefore, the assessee firm was entirely dependent upon the Managing Partner could not take timely steps for filing the present appeal. Immediately upon improvement of his health condition the assessee took proper action and filed the present appeal. Thus, he has pleaded that the delay of 70 days in filing the present appeal may be condoned and appeal be admitted for hearing. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. M/s. Kamalapat Juggilal & Co. AIR 1966 SC 796. 3. On ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ad-hoc disallowance is bad in law. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without proper appreciation of submissions and evidences filed, thereby violating principles of natural justice. The learned CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without granting any opportunity of hearing, thereby violating principles of natural justice. 7. The learned CIT(A) failed to exercise discretion judiciously and treated the condonation application in a highly technical manner, contrary to the spirit of faceless appellate mechanism and judicial precedents requiring liberal condonation. 8. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that refusing condonation has the effect of depriving the appellant of statutory appellate remedies, causing irreparable prejudice. The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234B, which is consequential and liable to be deleted if the additions are deleted. 9. On the facts and circumstance of the case, issue of Notice U/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act' 1961 is bad in law and without Jurisdiction. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Assessment order passed is not as per the Provisions of Section 14....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t of the recognized PF and therefore, Rule 87 which is applicable on the approved superannuation fund cannot be invoked in respect of the contribution to PF. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that when the contribution was made by the assessee in the PF where no ceiling is laid down as per Rules 67 to 81 then, the ceiling of the contribution to the approved superannuation fund under Rule 87 cannot be applied in respect of the contribution to PF. Only for computation of 27% ceiling on the superannuation fund the employer's contribution to PF has to be reduced from the superannuation ceiling. Therefore, that reference of PF under Rule 87 is mean only for computation of the 27% limit in superannuation fund and not for contribution to PF. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has thus submitted that the employer's contribution to recognized PF is part of the salary being perquisite as per sec.17(2) of the Act and as per Rule-6 read with Part-A of 4th Schedule the portion of the annual accreditation consisting of contribution made by the employer in excess of 12% of the salary of the employer shall be deemed to have been received b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 15,11,963/-(i.e. Rs. 52,57,551/- less Rs. 37,45,587/-) is disallowed and added to the assessed income of the assessee. (Addition: Rs. 15,11,963/-)." 12. Thus, the Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of Rule-87 for making the disallowance of excess amount of contribution over and above 27% of the salary paid to the employees. It is pertinent to note that Rule-87 prescribed the limit of the contribution only in the superannuation fund and not for recognized PF. A reference of PF is made in Rule-87 only for the purpose of computing 27% of the salary as reduced by the employer's contribution to the PF. Therefore, invoking Rule-87 by the Assessing Officer for disallowing the excess amount of contribution to PF is not as per the provisions of the Act and Rule. In fact, the employer's contribution to recognized PF is part of the salary u/sec.17 of the Act and particularly, it is considered as perquisite under sub-sec.(2) of sec.17 of the Act. Clause-(vii) of sec.17(2) is relevant and quoted as under: "Sec.17(2)(vii) "(2) perquisite" includes- (vii) the amount of any contribution to an approved superannuation fund by the employer in respect of th....