TAMILNADU TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,CHENNAI vs. ADIT,CPC, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 186/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 March 2023AY 2019-203 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the disallowance was justified as the contributions were deposited belatedly. Specific provisions (Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 43B) prevail over general provisions (Section 37(1)).

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deductions for Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund, but deposited the dues beyond the specified due dates. The CPC made adjustments disallowing these contributions, which were confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund deposited beyond the due date is justified, and if it can be allowed under Section 37(1).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 43B,Section 37(1),Section 143(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI V. DURGA RAO & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeals by assessee for Assessment Years (AY) 2018- 19 & 2019-20 arises out of the separate orders of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] both dated 16-12-2022 in the matter of intimations issued by Centralized Processing Center (CPC), Bengaluru u/s 143(1) of the Act. In both the appeals, the grievance of the assessee is same i.e., disallowance of Employees’ Contribution to Provident Fund u/s 36(1)(va)

1.

r.w.s. 43B due to the fact that the dues were deposited beyond due date as specified in respective acts.

2.

The Ld. AR advanced arguments and submitted that there was a minor delay in depositing the dues and therefore, impugned disallowance was not justified. The Ld. AR also submitted the expenditure may alternatively be allowed u/s. 37(1) of the Act. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, submitted that the issues stood squarely covered in favour of the Revenue by the recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in bunch of appeals titled as Checkmate Services P. Ltd. Vs CIT (Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 dated 12.10.2022). The Ld. CIT(A) has relied upon the same and therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned orders. Having heard rival submissions, our adjudication would be as under.

3.

For AY 2018-19, the assessee’s return of income was processed u/s 143(1) and certain adjustment was made. One of the adjustments was impugned disallowance. Upon further appeal, Ld. CIT(A), considering the cited decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the decision of this Tribunal in M/s. Electrical India & Ors. Vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru (ITA No.789/Chny/2022 dated 04-11-2022), confirmed the disallowance in both the years. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

4.

It could hardly be disputed the contributions were deposited belatedly and this issue stood squarely covered in revenue’s favor by the cited decision of Hon’ble Apex Court. This adjustment could be made u/s 143(1) also as per the cited decision of Tribunal. Therefore, no interference is called for in the impugned orders, for both the years. The alternative submissions that the expenditure may be allowed under General Section 37(1) could also not be accepted since the specific provisions would prevail over general provisions.

5.

In the result, both the appeals stands dismissed.

Order pronounced on 28th March, 2023.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →