MAX VIGIL SECURITY PVT. LTD. vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

PDF · subscribers
TAXAP/735/2019HC GujaratGJHC24056914201903 December 2019Author: HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI,HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that no substantial question of law arises from the impugned order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal had merely applied the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.). In that precedent, it was held that sums received by an assessee from employees, to which Section 2(24)(x) applies, are eligible for deduction under Section 28 only if credited to the employees' account in the relevant fund on or before the due date specified in the explanation to Section 36(1)(va). Consequently, the Tribunal had erred in deleting disallowances of employees' contribution to PF/ESI accounts when such sums were not credited to the employees' accounts in the relevant funds by the due date. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's application of this established legal principle to the present case.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Max Vigil Security Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, challenging an order dated February 18, 2019, passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Ahmedabad. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2014-2015. The core of the dispute is the disallowance of Rs. 1,77,66,589/- made by the Assessing Officer, which was confirmed by the Tribunal. The appellant's advocate reiterated the grounds of appeal. The ITAT's order was based on applying a previous decision of the Gujarat High Court.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and evidence on record, the Tribunal has erred in law in interpreting Section 36(1)(v)(a) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by confirming the addition/disallowance of Rs. 1,77,66,589/- made by the Assessing Officer? Assessee's Contention: The appellant argued that the Tribunal erred in law by confirming the disallowance. The grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal were reiterated. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue. However, the Tribunal's decision was based on a prior High Court ruling that supported the disallowance.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 260A,Section 36(1)(v)(a),Section 2(24)(x),Section 36(1)(va)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
C/TAXAP/735/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 735 of 2019 ========================================================== MAX VIGIL SECURITY PVT. LTD. Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ========================================================== Appearance: DARSHAN R PATEL(8486) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI and HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN Date : 03/12/2019

ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI)

1.

By this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the appellant has challenged the order dated 18th February, 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in ITA No.1300/AHD/2017 by proposing the following question stated to be substantial question of law: “Whether on facts and evidence on record, the Tribunal has seriously erred in law in interpreting provisions of section 36(1)(v)(a) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income

Tax

Act,

1961

for confirming addition/disallowance of Rs.1,77,66,589/- made by the Assessing Officer?”

2.

The assessment year is 2014-2015 and the corresponding accounting period is the previous year 2013-2014. 3. Heard Mr. Darshan R. Patel, learned advocate for the appellant who has reiterated the grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal.

4.

A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal C/TAXAP/735/2019 ORDER consideration and it was held as under:- “8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, and considering section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with sub-clause (x) of clause 24 of section 2, it is held that with respect to the sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section (2) applies, the assessee shall be entitled to deduction in computing the income referred to in section 28 with respect to such sum credited by the assessee to the employees account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date mentioned in explanation to section 36(1)(va). Consequently, it is held that the learned tribunal has erred in deleting respective disallowances being employees contribution to PF Account / ESI Account made by the AO as, as such, such sums were not credited by the respective assessee to the employees accounts in the relevant fund or funds (in the present case Provident Fund and/or ESI Fund on or before the due date as per the explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Act i.e. date by which the concerned assessee was required as an employer to credit employees contribution to the employees account in the Provident Fund under the Provident Fund Act and/or in the ESI Fund under the ESI Act.”

5.

Thus, the Tribunal has merely applied the decision of the jurisdictional High Court to the facts of the present case. Under the circumstances, no question of law can be said to arise out of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.

6.

The appeal therefore, fails and is accordingly summarily dismissed. (HARSHA DEVANI, J) (SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J) BINOY B PILLAI

More judgments on Section 2(24)(x)

All 2,270 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(24)(x) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →