IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SHAKDHER & GIRISH KATHPALIA, JJ.
Pr. CIT v. Network Programme India Ltd.
ITA No. 862/2018
25 July, 2023
Appellant Through by: Aseem Chawla, Senior Standing Counsel & Pratishtha Choudhary & Aditya Gupta, Advocates.
Respondent Through by: Rohit Jain & Aditya Vohra, Advocates.
Rajiv Shakdher, J. (Oral):
1. This appeal concerns assessment year (AY) 2002-03.
2. The appellant/revenue, via this appeal, seeks to assail the Order dated 17-11-2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, Tribunal).
3. According to Mr. Aseem Chawla, learned senior standing counsel, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, the only issue which arises for our consideration is: Whether the Tribunal had erred in law, by ruling in favour of the respondent/assessee, that the reassessment proceeding was not triggered validly, i.e., as per law.
4. The reasons to believe furnished by the assessing officer (AO), dated 6-9-2005, indicate that the reassessment proceeding was triggered on the following two (2) grounds:
(i) First, the respondent/assessee had not deposited the employers and employees contribution with the statutory authorities administering the Provident Fund and ESI fund, amounting to Rs. 14,12,034, as per the provisions of section 43B read with section 36(1)(iv) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, Act).
(ii) Second, the assessee had written off capital work-in- progress/process amounting to Rs. 1,83,14,900 in its profit and loss account, during the period under consideration. In other words, according to the assessing officer, since the petitioner had categorized the said amount as capital expenditure, it could not have been debited to the profit and loss account.