ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5(1), VISAKHAPATNAM vs. BRANDIX INDIA APPAREL CITY PRIVATE LIMITED, VISAKHAPATNAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 485/VIZ/2018Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 January 2019AY 2009-105 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that employees' contribution to PF, if deposited before the due date of filing the return of income, is allowable. The appeal of the revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee remitted employees' contribution to PF accounts after the due date but before filing the return of income. The Assessing Officer disallowed this contribution. The CIT(A) deleted the addition, following a previous ITAT decision.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of employees' PF contribution is justified when paid after the due date but before filing the return of income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(v),Section 2(24),Section 139(1)

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, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI V. DURGA RAO& SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH

For Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik, CIT DR, Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR
Hearing: 23.01.2019

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A.No.485/Viz/2018
CO No.5/Viz/2019

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश /O R D E R

PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH, Accountant Member:

This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [CIT(A)]-9, Hyderabad and cross objection filed by the assessee in support of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) vide I.T.A.No.10413/ACIT,Circle-5(1)/2017-18 dated 22.06.2018 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2009-10.

2.

All the grounds of appeal are related to the addition made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for the delay in remitting the employees contribution to Provident Fund (PF) accounts. In the instant case, the assessee remitted the employees contribution to PF a/c beyond the due date specified u/s 36(1)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘Act’), however, the same was remitted before filing the return of income. It is observed from the assessment order that PF contribution for July 2008 and March 2009 was paid on 23.08.2008 and 25.04.2009 respectively. Since the assessee remitted the employees contribution beyond the due date specified u/s 36(1)(v) of the Act, the AO made the

3 I.T.A. No.485/Viz/2018 and CO No.5/Viz/2019 Brandix India Apparel City Pvt Ltd., Visakhapatnam

disallowance of Rs.14,06,305/- representing the employees contribution to EPF to the returned income u/s 36(1)(v)r.w.s 2(24) of the Act.

3.

Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee went on appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the AO following the order of this Tribunal in the case of Eastern Power Distribution Company of AP Ltd. For the sake of clarity and convenience we extract relevant part of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in para No.4.1 and 4.2 which reads as under :

“4.1. This issue has been decided by the Hon’ble ITAT, Visakhapatnam Bench in ITA No. 609/Vizag/2014 for A.Y. 2011-12 in the case of Eastern Power Distribution Company of AP Ltd. The Hon’ble ITAT has decided the issue as under: "We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record. The identical issue has come up before this tribunal for adjudication of the A. Y. 2011-12 and the FIAT allowed the appeal of the assessee following the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of ESSAR TERAOKA PVT LTD vs. DCIT (366 ITR 408) and the decision of Hon’ble ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Tetra Soft India Put Ltd Vs. ACIT (2015) (40 ITR TRIBUNAL 470) for ready reference, we reproduce here under the relevant para no. 10 of the tribunal cited supra. Para 10: considering the facts and circumstances of this case and also following the judicial precedence as discussed above, we are of the view that there is no distinction between employees and employer contribution to PF, and if the total contribution is deposited on or before the due date of furnishing return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act, then no disallowance can be made towards employees contribution to provident fund. The CIT(A) after considering the relevant details rightly deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer. We do not see any reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). Hence, we incline to uphold the CIT(A) order and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue. Respectfully following the decision of this tribunal on the assessee's own case in the earlier year we uphold the order of the learned

4 I.T.A. No.485/Viz/2018 and CO No.5/Viz/2019 Brandix India Apparel City Pvt Ltd., Visakhapatnam

CIT and allow the appeal of the assessee" 4.2. Respectfully following the jurisdictional ITAT, the Assessing Officer is directed to delete the addition made on account of disallowance in respect of Employees Contribution of Provident Fund.”

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material placed on record. This Tribunal has taken a consistent view that the employees contribution to PF required to be allowed even if the same is paid before the due date of filing the return u/s 139(1) of the Act. The Tribunal has followed the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of ESSAE TERAOKA PVT Ltd. Vs. DCIT [366 ITR 408] and the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Tetra Soft India Pvt. Td. Vs. ACIT (2015) (40 ITR Tribunal 470) while delivering the above ruling. Therefore, respectfully following the view taken by this Tribunal we uphold the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue.

5.

Assessee filed cross objections in support of the order of the Ld.CIT(A). Since the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, cross objection of the assessee became infructuous, hence, dismissed.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and the cross objections of the assessee are dismissed.

5 I.T.A. No.485/Viz/2018 and CO No.5/Viz/2019 Brandix India Apparel City Pvt Ltd., Visakhapatnam

Order pronounced in the open court on 25th January, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- (िी.दुगाा राि) (धड.एस. सुन्दर धसंह) (V. DURGA RAO) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) न्याधयकसदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBERलेखासदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER नवशधखधपटणम /Visakhapatnam नििधंक /Dated : 25.01.2019 L.Rama, SPS आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. निर्धाऩरती/ The Assessee- M/s Brandix India Apparel City Private Ltd., Plot No.18, BIACPL, SEZ, Pudimadaka Road, Atchutapuram Mandal, Visakhapatnam 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue – The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax , Circle-5(1) Visakhapatnam 3. The Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax-2, Visakhapatnam 4. The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-9, Hyderabad 5. तिभागीय प्रतितिति, आयकर अिीिीय अतिकरण, तिशाखािटणम /DR, ITAT, Visakhapatnam 6.गार्डफ़ाईि / Guard file आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER // True Copy //

Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM

More judgments on Section 36(1)(v)

All 130 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(v) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →