ASPEN INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITED (FORMERLY SYNEFRA ENGINEERING & CONST. LTD),AHMEDABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1) (1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1726/AHD/2017Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 April 2019AY 2013-143 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 payments were not made within the due dates and therefore, the disallowance was justified. Remitting the issue to the AO for verification was deemed unnecessary as the details were already available.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction for employees' contribution to PF and ESI. The AO disallowed this amount as it was not paid within the due dates stipulated by the PF and ESI Acts. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether employees' contribution to PF and ESI, if paid after the due date prescribed under the respective Acts but before the due date of filing the return of income, 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, AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘C’

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI WASEEM AHMED

For Appellant: Shri P.B. Parmar, AR
For Respondent: Shri G.C. Daxini, Sr.DR
Hearing: 26/03/2019

PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER : Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of the ld.CIT(A)-8, Ahmedabad dated 5.6.2017 passed for the Asstt.Year 2013-14.

2.

Though the assessee has taken four grounds of appeal, but its substantial grievance is that the ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Employees Contribution towards PF amounting to Rs.23,99,459/- which was disallowed by the AO under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

ITA No.1726/Ahd/2017 - 2 -

3.

With the assistance of the ld.representatives, we have gone through the record carefully. It merges out from the record that the assessee has filed its return of income on 28.9.2013 declaring total income at Rs.NIL after setting off brought forward business loss. On scrutiny of the accounts, it revealed to the AO that the assessee has debited a sum of Rs.23,99,459/- in accounts and claimed payment of Employees Contribution towards PF and ESI. The ld.AO has reproduced accounts of such contribution made by the employees showing actual payment, due date of payment, actual date of payment. Such details are reproduced in para 4.1 of the assessment order.

4.

We have perused these details. It emerges out that the contribution for the month of June, 2012 was actually paid in the month of February, 2013. Some defaults are there with regard to other months. The AO has specifically held that these were not paid within due date provided in the PF and ESI Acts, therefore, he disallowed it. On appeal, the ld.CIT(A) has confirmed the disallowance by following decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Ltd., 366 ITR 170. The ld.counsel for the assessee contended before us that the issue be remitted to the AO for verification of the payments. He made reference to the decision of ITAT in the case of Suzlon Energy Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Ahmedabad.

5.

On consideration of the above facts, we find that the details of payments were already noticed by the AO in para-4.1 and we have gone through these details. The payments have not been made within due date. Therefore, no purpose will be served for remitting this issue to the

ITA No.1726/Ahd/2017 - 3 -

file of AO. We do not find any merit in this appeal of the assessee. It is dismissed.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Pronounced in the Open Court on 8th April, 2019.

Sd/- SD/- (WASEEM AHMED) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

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 →