CB DOCTOR VENTILATORS PRIVATE LIMITED,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(3), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2833/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 August 2019AY 2014-153 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 upheld the disallowance of employee's contribution to PF and ESI made belatedly, even if paid before the due date of filing the return of income. The decision was based on the Gujarat High Court's ruling that such payments must be credited to the employee's account before the 'due date'.

What were the facts?

The assessee made belated payments of employee's contribution to Provident Fund and ESI beyond the grace period allowed by the respective acts. The AO disallowed these amounts, relying on a Gujarat High Court judgment.

What were the issues?

Whether employee's contribution to PF and ESI, paid belatedly but before the due date of filing the return, is allowable as a deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 2(24)(x)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)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, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED&

For Respondent: Shri Richa Rastogi, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 17/07/2019Pronounced: 08/08/2019

The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 1, Ahmedabad arising out of the order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2014-15.

2.

It appears from the records that for last four occasions none appeared on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought for. Hence, we are deciding the matter ex-parte. The matter relates to confirming of disallowance of Rs.8,67,478/- and Rs.46,961/- being the Employee’s Contribution to Provident Fund and Employee’s State Insurance Contribution respectively. The case of the assessee is this that such payment - 2 - CB Doctor Ventilators Pvt. Ltd. ITO Asst.Year – 2014-15 were made belatedly but before the end of the relevant previous year and also before the due date of filing of return of income for the year under consideration. Admittedly, such payment was made by the assessee beyond the grace time allowed by the PF & ESIC Act. While disallowing the claim of the assessee the Learned AO relied upon the order passed by the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT-vs-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation reported in [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100 (Gujarat) where it has been held that with respect to the sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provision of sub clause 10(x) of Clause 24 of Section 2 is applied, the assessee shall be entitled to deduction of such amount in computing the income referred to under section 28 only if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employee’s account in the relevant funds or fund’s before the “due date”. Thus, since the assessee admittedly credited such sum beyond the due date or even beyond the grace period disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act was made by the Learned AO. Resultantly, the amount of Rs.9,14,439/- was added to the total income of the assessee which was confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) in appeal relying upon the judgment passed in the matter of CIT-vs- GSRTC (Supra) passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court which in our considered view is without any infirmity so as to warrant interferences. Hence the order passed by the authorities below is upheld. Assessee’s appeal is, thus, found devoid of any merit and, therefore, dismissed.

3.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 08/08/2019

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 →