SHRI BHUVNESH KUMAR KABRA,BHOPAL vs. DCIT/ACIT 2 (1) BHOPAL, BHOPAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 96/IND/2021Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 November 2021AY 2018-196 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that no disallowance is called for under section 36(1)(va) if the employee and employer contributions to PF/ESIC are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, even if there was a delay in depositing as per the specific PF/ESIC due dates.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income tax return was processed under section 143(1), leading to a disallowance of Rs. 3,55,935/- for delayed payment of Provident Fund (PF) and ESIC contributions. The assessee had deposited these contributions before the due date for filing the return of income.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance under section 36(1)(va) is justified when PF/ESIC contributions are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, despite being delayed as per PF/ESIC specific due dates.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 36(1)(va),Section 139(1)

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, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV HONBLE & SHRI MANISH BORAD

For Respondent: Shri Arpit Mundra, AR, Shri Amit Soni, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.11.2021Pronounced: 26.11.2021

per the due date prescribed under the provisions of PF/ESIC but the contribution is deposited before the due date of filing of return of income. No disallowance is called for u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act as held by this Tribunal in the case of M/s Industrial Filters and Fabrics Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein the tribunal has observed the following:

25.

We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the Authorities below. In the light of judgment of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case cited (supra), wherein the Hon'ble High Court has held as under: “3. However, taking into consideration, the judgement of this court in the case of assessee itself in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.150/2016 (Principal Commissioner of Income Tax. Jaipur-2 v. M/s. Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd.) decided on 4.8.2016 wherein Division Bench observed as under:

1.

"5. So far as the question relating to privilege fees amounting to Rs, 26.00 Crores in the instant year as well as the deduction of claim of Rs. 17,80,765/- on account of Provident Fund (PF) and ESI is concerned, the Court has extensively considered the aforesaid two questions in assessee's own case vide judgement and order dated 26.5.2016 referred to (supra) and has held that the privilege fees being a revenue expenditure, is required to be allowed as a revenue expendit11re. This court in the aforesaid case has also allowed the claim of the assessee, in so far as payment of PF & ESI etc. is concerned, on the finding of fact that the amounts in question were deposited on or before the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgement of this Court in Commissioner o/Income Tax v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nig,lII!1 Ltd (2011) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.) : (2014) 265 CTR 471 and accordingly both the questions are covered by the aforesaid judgment and against the revenue.

7.

Ld. DR failed to bring any binding precedence in its favour of the jurisdictional High Court on this issue, therefore, the issue raised in the instant appeal is squarely covered by decision of this Tribunal.

We, accordingly set aside the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and delete the Bhuvnesh Kumar Kabra Rs.3,55,935/-(employees contribution to PF/ESIC at Rs.1,54,463/- and employees contribution to PF and ESIC at Rs.2,01,472/-). Ground no.1 & 2 raised by the assessee are allowed.

Ground No.3 is general in nature which needs no adjudication.

8.

In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITANo.96/Ind/2021 is allowed.

Order pronounced as per Rule 34 of I.T.A.T., Rules 1963 on … 26.11.2021.

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 →