SHRI RAM FIRE WORKS PVT. LTD.,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 (1) (4), RAJKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 390/RJT/2018Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 March 2019AY 2015-163 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 disallowance made by the Assessing Officer was just and proper. The assessee is not entitled to deduction if the employees' contribution is not credited to the employees' account in the relevant fund on or before the due date prescribed under Section 36(1)(va).

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction of Rs. 3,89,372/- for employee's contribution to provident fund. The Assessing Officer disallowed this amount as the payment was made to the government beyond the due date.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of employee's contribution to provident fund is justified when paid beyond the due date specified in Section 36(1)(va), even if paid before the due date under Section 43B.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 43B

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, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD & SHRI WASEEM AHMED

For Appellant: Shri Ranjit D. Lalchandani, A.R

PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER

1.

This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Rajkot dated 03.08.2018 pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 and following ground has been taken:

ITA No. 390/Rjt/2018 2 . A.Y. 2015-16 1.The CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 3,89,372/- under the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act.

2.

In this case, the ld. A.O. has disallowed the amount of Rs. 3,89,372/- under the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the act. The A.O. has held that since the payments were paid to the government beyond the due date the same were disallowable. Thereafter in appeal ld. CIT(A) confirmed action of the A.O.

3.

Before us, ld. A.R. fairly conceded that this case is against the assessee the Hon’ble High Court in the matter of GSRTC 366 ITR 170 wherein it is held: "Section 43B, read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance - Certain deductions to be allowed on actual payment (Employees contribution) - Whether where an employer has not credited sum received by it as employees' contribution to employees' account in relevant fund on or before due date as prescribed in Explanation to section 36(1)(va), assessee shall not be entitled to deduction of such amount though he deposits same before due date prescribed under section 43B i. e., prior to filing of return under section 139(1) - Held, yes - Assessee State transport corporation collected a sum being provident fund contribution from its employees - However, it had deposited lesser sum in provident fund account -Assessing Officer disallowed same under section 43B - However, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted disallowance on ground that employees contribution was deposited before filing return - Whether since assessee had not deposited said contribution in respective fund account on date as prescribed in Explanation to section 36(1)(va), disallowance made by Assessing Officer was just and proper - Held, yes [Para 8] [In favour of revenue]

4.

In view of the aforesaid GSRTC case, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in Open Court on 20 - 03- 2019

Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER True Copy JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 20 /03/2019

ITA No. 390/Rjt/2018 3 . A.Y. 2015-16 Rajesh Copy of the Order forwarded to:- 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT (Appeals) – 4. The CIT concerned. 5. The DR., ITAT, Ahmedabad. 6. Guard File. By ORDER

Deputy/Asstt.Registrar ITAT,Ahmedabad

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 →