Friends Timber Pvt. Ltd. v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

Friends Timber Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee challenged the order on various grounds, including the legality of the assessment, the disallowance of interest on TDS, TCS, and income tax, and the addition of late payment of employee's contribution to Provident Fund & ESIC. The case was selected for limited scrutiny due to large unsecured loans and other expenses claimed. The Assessing Officer disallowed the interest claimed by the assessee and added it back to the total income. The appeal was dismissed by the first appellate authority and the assessee appealed to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.…

Legal Issues

• 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the entire assessment framed is bad in law and liable to be quashed in the interest of justice.
• 2. The Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre ('NFAC') grossly erred in not adjudicating the ground challenging the legality of assessment despite the same having been taken and specifically argued.
• 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in confirming the additions made during assessment which were outside the scope of Limited Scrutiny.
• 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO grossly erred in disallowing and the CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in confirming the interest paid of Rs.1,53,188/- on delayed deposit of TDS, TCS and Income Tax.
• 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO grossly erred in making and the CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in confirming a total addition of Rs.57,475/- on account of late deposit of amounts pertaining to Employee's contribution to Provident Fund & ESIC despite the said amounts having been paid by the Appellant before the due date of filing the return of income.
• 6. The CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in adjudicating the appeal and confirming the additions without giving an opportunity to the Appellant to be heard in person as was specifically requested by the Appellant. The adjudication of the Appeal is thus violative of the principles of natural justice and deserved to be set aside in the interest of justice.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• M/s Bindhya Bashini Traders Vs Circle – 32, Kolkata

  Kolkata bench

• Subodh Kumar Agarwal vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC Bengaluru

  Mumbai bench

• JCIT, Circle 21 (1) vs. Rajasthan Explosives Chemicals Ltd.

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2016-17Partly Allowed

• M/s.Bharat Textiles & Proofing Industries Ltd. v. The ITO

  Chennai bench

• Tara Suthar Versus ITO, Ward 3(5), Jodhpur

  Jodhpur bench

• Mrutyunjay Rout, Prop. M/s. Sopny Brothers vs. ACIT, Balasore Circle

  Cuttack bench