DHALL ENTERPRISES & ENGINEERS PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1)(2), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2529/AHD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad21 May 2018AY 2013-144 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 assessee is not entitled to deduction for employee contributions if not credited to the employees' account in the relevant fund on or before the due date prescribed in Explanation to Section 36(1)(va), even if deposited before the due date under Section 43B.

What were the facts?

The assessee company made late payments of employee PF/ESIC contributions. The auditor reported these late payments, and the Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs. 3,81,252/- as income under Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether late payment of employee PF/ESIC contributions, even if deposited before the due date for filing the return, can be disallowed as a deduction and treated as income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 2(24)(x),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, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AR

PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Ahmedabad dated 24.08.2016 pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14 and following grounds have been taken:.

ITA No. 2529/Ahd/2016 2 . A.Y. 2013-14 1. That on facts and in law, the ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 3,81,252/- made u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act.

2.

Facts of the case are that on verification of audit report filed during the course of assessment proceedings, the auditor has reported the employees PF/ESIC contribution are paid by the assessee late, the details of which are as under: Sr. Month Nature of Amount Due Date Date of No Payment payment 1 October-2012 PF 240630 20/11/2012 21/11/2012 1 April-2012 ESIC 17194 21/05/2012 25/05/2012 2 May-2012 ESIC 18266 21/06/2012 23/06/2012 3 August-2012 ESIC 32357 21/09/2012 26/09/2012 4 September-2012 ESIC 19323 21/10/2012 22/10/2012 5 October-2012 ESIC 18039 21/11/2012 22/11/2012 6 November-2012 ESIC 17749 21/12/2012 22/12/2012 7 January -201 3 ESIC 17694 21/02/2013 28/02/2013 TOTAL 381252

ii) As such, vide Point No. 8 of order sheet entry dated 07/07/2015, the assessee was required to explain as to why the amount of Rs. 3,81,252/- should not be treated as income u/s. 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax. Act and made addition of Rs. 3,81,252/-.

3.

Against the said order, assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but to no avail.

ITA No. 2529/Ahd/2016 3 . A.Y. 2013-14 4. We have gone through the relevant record in the impugned order. This case is squarely covered against the appellant by the decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 366 ITR 170 wherein it is held as under: "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]”

5.

Respectfully following the above said decision, we dismiss the appeal of the appellant and in our considered opinion, ld. CIT(A) has passed detailed and reasoned order on the basis of Jurisdictional High Court judgment.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.

Order pronounced in Open Court on 21- 05- 2018

Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER True Copy JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 21/05/2018 Rajesh Copy of the Order forwarded to:-

ITA No. 2529/Ahd/2016 4 . A.Y. 2013-14 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 →