We find that the assessee has made payment on or before the due date of filing of return u/s. 139(1) of the Act and this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Vijay Shree Limited, supra, wherein Hon’ble Calcutta High Court has held as under:
“After hearing Mr. Sinha, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant and after going through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., we find that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that the amendment to the second proviso to the Sec. 43(B) of the Income Tax Act, as introduced by Finance Act, 2003, was curative in nature and is required to be applied retrospectively with effect from 1st April, 1988.
Such being the position, the deletion of the amount paid by the Employees’ contribution beyond due date was deductible by invoking the aforesaid amended provisions of Section 43(B) of the Act.
We, therefore, find that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and consequently, we dismiss this appeal.”
In this view of the matter and respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Vijay Shree Limited (supra), we allow the claim of assessee in deleting the addition as made by AO. This ground of appeal of revenue is dismissed.
Disallowance U/s. 14A without recording satisfaction by the AO about the correctness of the claim of the assessee is invalid –
We find from the facts of the above case that the AO has not examined the accounts of the assessee and there is no satisfaction recorded by the AO about the correctness of the claim of the assessee and without the same he invoked Rule 8D of the Rules. While rejecting the claim of the assessee with regard to expenditure or no expenditure, as the case may be, in relation to exempted income, the AO has to indicate cogent reasons for the same. From the facts of the present case it is noticed that the AO has not considered the claim of the assessee and straight away embarked upon computing disallowance under Rule 8D of the Rules on presuming the average value of investment at 1/2% of the total value. In view of the above and respectfully following the coordinate bench decision in the case of J. K. Investors (Bombay) Ltd., supra, we uphold the order of CIT(A). This ground of appeal of revenue is dismissed.
View High Court Judgment in above case :- CIT vs. REI Agro Ltd (Calcutta High Court)