DECO MICA LIMITED vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1(1)(1)

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/302/2021HC GujaratGJHC24048824202107 January 2022Author: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE2 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted that the issues raised in the appeal were no longer res integra in light of its own prior judgment in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Limited, reported in 366 ITR 170 [Gujarat]. The learned senior counsel for the assessee fairly conceded that the issues were squarely covered by this decision. However, he pointed out that an appeal against the High Court's judgment in the GSRTC case was pending before the Supreme Court, and leave had been granted. The High Court dismissed the present appeal at that stage. It provided a liberty to the appellant to revive the appeal within three months from the date of the Supreme Court's judgment, should the Supreme Court reverse the GSRTC decision. No specific finding was given on the merits of the disallowance, as the appeal was disposed of on procedural grounds pending a higher court's decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Deco Mica Limited, filed the present appeal before the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad against an order dated 19/04/2021 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), 'B' Bench, Ahmedabad. The appeal pertains to Assessment Year 2015-16. The core of the dispute involves the disallowance of Rs.17,77,538/-. The assessee is challenging the ITAT's confirmation of this disallowance. The procedural history indicates that the assessee is now before the High Court after the ITAT's decision.

What were the issues?

The Tribunal had to decide the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the ITAT was correct in confirming the disallowance of Rs.17,77,538/- under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? 2. Whether the ITAT was correct in not appreciating that the due date for payment of employer's contribution to EPF/ESI should be reckoned from the date of actual salary payment, not accrual? 3. Whether the ITAT was correct in not appreciating that the amounts are allowable under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Act, having been deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1)? The assessee argued that the disallowance was incorrect and that the due date for employer's contribution should be linked to the actual payment of salary. The assessee also contended that the amounts deposited before the due date of filing the return of income should be allowable. The revenue's contentions are not explicitly recorded in the judgment, but it is implied they supported the disallowance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 2(24)(x),Section 43B,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/TAXAP/302/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/01/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 302 of 2021 ========================================================== DECO MICA LIMITED Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 1(1)(1) ========================================================== Appearance: MR TUSHAR HIMANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS VAIBHAVI K PARIKH(3238) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE Date : 07/01/2022

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA)

1.

This appeal is at the instance of a assessee and is directed against the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ Bench, Ahmedabad dated 19/04/2021 in the ITA No.2198/Ahd/2018 for the A.Y. 2015-16. 2. The appellant – assessee has proposed the following substantial questions of law for the consideration of this Court:- (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs.17,77,538/- under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? (ii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not appreciating that the due date of payment of employers’ contribution into the Government Treasury as contemplated under the provisions of Employees Provident Funds & Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 should be reckoned from the date of actual payment of salary and not its accrual? C/TAXAP/302/2021 ORDER DATED: 07/01/2022 (iii) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was right in law in not appreciating that the amounts are allowable under Section 36(1) (va) read with section 43B of the Act, having been deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act?

3.

We have heard Mr. Tushar Himani, the learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. Vaibhavi Parikh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant – assess referred to above are no longer res-integra in view of the main judgment of this High Court in case of Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation Limited, reported in 366 ITR 170 [Gujarat].

4.

Mr. Himani, the learned senior counsel very fairly submitted that the issues on hand as such are squarely by the above referred decision of this High Court. However, he pointed out that the appeal against the judgment of the High Court before the Supreme Court is pending. He pointed out that the leave has been granted and appeal has been admitted.

5.

We dismiss this appeal at this stage. However, in the event, if the Supreme Court reverses the judgment in the G.S.R.T.C. [Supra], it would be open for the appellant herein to revive this appeal by filing an application for such purpose within three months from the date of the judgment. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (NISHA M. THAKORE,J) A. B. VAGHELA

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →