ASCENT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE,SILVASSA vs. DY.CIT CIRCLE-VAPI, VAPI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4/SRT/2017Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 October 2020AY 2013-143 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employee's contribution to Provident Fund deposited after the due date. This decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling that Section 43B is not applicable for delayed payments of employee's PF contribution, but Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) is applicable.

What were the facts?

The assessee company had deposited employee contributions towards Provident Fund after the due date. The Assessing Officer disallowed this amount as a deduction, and the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision.

What were the issues?

Whether the delayed deposit of employee's contribution to Provident Fund is disallowable as a deduction under the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 2(24)(x),Section 143(3),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SURAT BENCH, SURAT

Before: SHRI PAWAN SINGH, Honble & SHRI ARJUN LAL SAINI, Honble

Hearing: 01.10.2020

सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of hearing: 01.10.2020 उ�घोषणाक�तार�ख/Pronouncement on: 01.10.2020 आदेश /O R D E R

PER PAWAN SINGH, JM:

1.

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Valsad dated 22.05.2017, which in turn arise from the assessment order passed under section 143(3) dated 28.03.2016 for the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

Grounds raised

by the Assessee read as under: “1. The ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming the action of the ld. AO of disallowing Employee’s contribution towards Provident Fund amount to Rs.13,10,099/- u/s 36(1)(va) R.W.S.2(24)(x) of the Act.

2. Both the lower authorities have passed the orders without properly appreciating the facts and they further erred in grossly ignoring various submissions, explanations and information submitted by the appellant from time to time which ought to have been considered before passing the impugned order. This action of the lower authorities is in clear breach of law and Principles of Natural Justice and therefore deserves to be quashed.

Ascent Meditech Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi A.Y. 2013-14

3.

The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the ld. AO in levying interest u/s.234A/B/C of the Act.

4. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts of the case in confirming action of the ld. AO in initiating penalty u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter, edit, delete, modify or change all or any of the grounds of appeal at the time of or before the hearing of the appeal.

3. At the outset, on hearing the learned Authorised Representative( Ld. AR) of the assessee submits that the grounds raised by the assessee is covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (GSRTC) reported 366 ITR 170. The ld.AR of the assessee submits that since the issue is squarely covered against the assessee, therefore the appeal may be dismissed as not pressed.

4.

On the other hand, the ld. Departmental Representative (DR) agreed with the submission of the ld.AR of the assessee. The Ld. DR for the revenue submits that the appeal may be dismissed.

5.

We have considered the submissions of the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the order of the lower authorities. The assessing officer (A.O.) while passing the assessment order noted that the assessee deposited employee contribution of Provident Fund after due date of deposit prescribed under Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. The A.O. after issuing show cause notice to the assessee made addition of Rs. 13,10,099/- under section 36(1)(v) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act. On appeal before 2 Ascent Meditech Ltd., Vs. DCIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi A.Y. 2013-14 learned Commissioner (Appeals) the action of A.O. was upheld. Before us the Ld. AR for the assessee fairly agreed that the issue is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, reported (2014) 41 taxmann.com 100/(366 ITR 170(Supra). Considering the submissions of the parties that the issue raised in present appeal is covered by the decisions of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in CIT Vs GSRTC (supra) wherein it was held that sec. 43B of the Act is not applicable for the delayed payments of employees contribution to PF as under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act. In the light of above discussion and facts and circumstances and judicial decision Hon`ble High Court we upheld the addition made by the ld.AO, accordingly appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

7.

Order pronounced in the open court on 01-10-2020 while hearing the appeal.

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 →