PLASTENE INDIA LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2837/AHD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 May 2018AY 2013-142 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 upheld the disallowance of the employees' PF contribution. It followed the Gujarat High Court's decision that if PF contributions are not deposited within the time limit provided in the respective Acts, deduction is not admissible.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction for employees' PF contribution. The AO disallowed this deduction as the contribution was not paid within the due date stipulated by the relevant Act, although it was paid before the due date for filing the return.

What were the issues?

Whether employees' PF contribution paid after the due date under the PF Act but before the due date of filing the return is allowable as a deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BENCH ‘C’

Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH

Hearing: 23/04/2018Pronounced: 10/05/2018

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद �यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH ‘C’ BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.2837/Ahd/2016 �नधा�रण वष�/Asstt. Year: 2013-14 Plastene India Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir.3(1)(1) Ahmedabad. H.B. Jirawala House 13, Navbharat Society Usmanpura, Ahmedabad 380013. PAN : AAACO 3087 C

अपीलाथ�/ (Appellant) �त् यथ�/ (Respondent)

Assessee by : Astha Maniar Revenue by : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr.DR सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 23/04/2018 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement: 10/05/2018 आदेश/O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of ld.CIT(A)-9, Ahmedabad passed for the Asstt.Year 2013-14.

2.

Only ground raised in this appeal is against disallowance of employees’ PF contribution of Rs.20,23,808/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the ground that it was not paid within due date.

3.

In the return of income filed by the assessee for the Asstt.Year 2013-14, the assessee has claimed deduction of employees’ PF contribution amounting to Rs.20,23,808/-. The assessee contended before the AO that PF contribution was deposited before the due date of

ITA No.2837 /Ahd/2016 2 filing of return, and therefore, the assessee is eligible for deduction under section 36(1)(va) and claimed deduction under section 43B of the Act. This contention of the assessee was rejected by the AO on the ground that the said sum has to be deposited in the credit of employees within the ‘due date’ stipulated in relevant Act and not before due date of filing of return, and therefore, the AO treated the same as income of the assessee and added to its total income. This action of the AO was confirmed by the ld.CIT(A).

4.

Before us, the ld.counsel for the assessee reiterated contentions as were made before the Revenue authorities, whereas the ld.DR relied upon orders of the Revenue.

5.

We have considered rival contentions and gone through the record. The AO has disallowed deduction of Employees’ PF contribution under section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The ld.CIT(A) has upheld the disallowance by following decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transportation Corporation (supra). The ld.counsel for the assessee did not dispute about proposition that the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has decided this issue against the assessee. Considering the Hon’ble High Court’s judgment, if PF contributions are not deposited within time limit provided in the respective Acts, i.e. Provident Fund and ESI Act, then deduction will not be admissible to the assessee. After considering the finding of the ld.CIT(A) we do not find any error in it. This ground of appeal is rejected.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 10th May, 2018 at Ahmedabad.

Sd/- Sd/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 10/05/2018

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 →