TULASI SEEDS PRIVATE LIMITED,GUNTUR vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), , GUNTUR

All the grounds of appeal are related to the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer(AO) on account of delayed payment of ESI and PF. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO found that the assessee has not remitted the ESI and PF amounting to Rs.4,03,396/- and Rs.20,30,510/- respectively aggregating to Rs.24,33,906/- before the due date mentioned in the respective Acts. Therefore, the AO made addition of Rs.24,33,906/- to the returned income.

Against the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

Against which the assessee is in appeal in before this Tribunal. During the appeal hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the case is squarely covered by the decisions of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y.2014-15 and also by the order in the case of M/s APEPDCL in I.T.A. No.374/Viz/2017 dated 20.09.2017 in favour of the assessee. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee has remitted the above sums before the due date of filing the return of income, therefore, requested to set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and allow the appeal of the assessee.

On the other hand, the Ld.DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.

We have heard both the parties and find that the assessee had remitted the ESI and PF contribution before the due date of filing the return of income. This Tribunal has taken a consistent view that if the remittance is made before the due date of filing the return of income, the same required to be allowed. The Ld.AR relied on the order of this Tribunal in APEPDCL (supra) and the Ld.DR did not bring any decision of the superior court to controvert the same, hence, the case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s APEPDCL (supra). For the sake of clarity and convenience, we extract relevant part of the order of this Tribunal in the cited case which reads as follows. “4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The identical issue has come up before this Tribunal for adjudication for the assessment year 2011-12 and the ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee following the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT[366 ITR 408] and the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Tetra Soft (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT(2015) [40 ITR (Trib) 470]. For ready reference, we reproduce hereunder the relevant paragraph no.10 of the order of this Tribunal cited supra. “10. Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also following the judicial precedents as discussed above, we are of the view that there is no distinction between employees' and employer contribution to PF, and if the total contribution is deposited on or before the due date of furnishing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, then no disallowance can be made towards employees' contribution to provident fund. The CIT(A) after considering the relevant details rightly deleted the additions made by the A.O. We do not see

Respectfully following the decision of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the earlier year, we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT and allow the appeal of the assessee. Since the issue is identical, respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A), delete the addition made by the AO and allow the appeal of the assessee.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax, Guntur

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Guntur 5. तवभधगीय प्रतितितर्, आयकर अिीिीय अतर्करण, तवशधखधिटणम/DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6.गधर्ा फ़धईि / Guard file आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER //// Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Visakhapatnam