THE COMMR. OF INCOME TAX-III, LDH vs. M/S MOHINI HOSIERY MILLS

Income Tax Appeal No. 173 of 2006 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. --- Income Tax Appeal No. 173 of 2006 Date of decision: 1.12.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax-III Ludhiana --- Appellant Versus M/s. Mohini Hosiery Mills Ludhiana --- Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr. Dinesh Gupta, Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue. None for the respondent-assessee. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This order will dispose of Income Tax Appeal Nos. 173 of 2006 and 159 of 2007 as similar issues of law are involved in both of them. Income Tax Appeal No. 173 has been filed under Section 260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) by the Revenue against the order dated 29.7.2005, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘A’ Chandigarh (in short “the Tribunal”) in ITA No283/CHANDI/2003, relating to the assessment year 1998-99. Income Tax Appeal No. 173 of 2006 2

The appeal was admitted on 7.9.2006 for determination of the following substantial questions of law by this Court: 1- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in allowing claim of deduction under Section 36(1) (va) read with Section 43B in respect of late deposits of payment of PF, ESI and EPF” 2- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in relying on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of payment under the Sales Tax Act.” 3- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in holding that the amendment made in 43B(b) w.e.f. 1.4.2004 was retrospective?” The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication as narrated in the appeal, are that the respondent-assessee derived income from manufacturing and sale of hosiery goods. While completing assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, the assessing officer by order dated 20.3.2001, disallowed deduction of Rs. 47,075/- and Rs. 2,73,353/- in view of provisions of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act as the payments in respect of PF, ESI and EPF were found to have been made after the “due date”. The Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal No. 173 of 2006 3 Income-tax (Appeals) {in short “the CIT(A)”}, accepted the appeal of the assessee and deleted the entire additions. The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(A) by the order under appeal. It is how the Revenue is in appeal before us. Learned counsel for the Revenue very fairly accepts that the issues raised in the instant appeal stand concluded by the apex Court’s judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Alom Extrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) and this Court in Income Tax Appeal No. 663 of 2005 (The Commissioner of Income Tax Patiala v. M/s. Rai Agro Industries Ltd. Sangrur) decided on 30.11.2010, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. The substantial questions of law are, thus, answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Resultantly, the appeals are dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) December 1, 2010 JUDGE *rkmalik*