THE ORISSA CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS FEDERATION LIMITED,BHUBANESWAR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-4(1), BHUBANESWAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 257/CTK/2017Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack20 March 2018AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that if the employees' contribution to PF is deposited before the due date of filing the return of income under Section 139(1), it should be allowed as a deduction. The addition sustained by the CIT(A) was deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not deposit employees' contribution to PF within the prescribed due date. The CIT(A) sustained the addition for the amount paid beyond the due date but within the grace period allowed by the PF Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF deposited after the due date but before the return filing date is justified. Whether the Supreme Court's decision in Rajasthan Beverage Corporation Ltd. is applicable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(24)(x),Section 36(1)(va),Section 43B,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

Before: S/SHRI N.S SAINI & PAVAN KUMAR GADALE

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mohapatra, AR
For Respondent: Shri Piyush Kolhe, , CIT DR
Hearing: 20/03

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK

BEFORE S/SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.257/CTK/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-2013

The Orissa State Co- Vs. DCIT, Circle 4(1), operative Milk Producers Bhubaneswar. Federation Ltd., Plot No.D-2, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar. PAN/GIR No.AABTT 3220 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

Assessee by : Shri B.K.Mohapatra, AR Revenue by : Shri Piyush Kolhe, , CIT DR

Date of Hearing : 20/03/ 2018 Date of Pronouncement : /03/ 2018

O R D E R Per N.S.Saini, AM This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the

CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar dated 6th March, 2017 for the assessment year

2012-13.

2.

The sole issue involved in this appeal is that the CIT(A) erred in

sustaining the addition of Rs.11,56,756/- u/s.2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1) of the

I.T.Act, 1961 in respect of employees contribution to PF.

3.

The facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer found that the

assessee has not deposited an amount of Rs.1,36,58,901/- towards

employees contribution to PF within the prescribed under the PF Act and,

therefore, made addition to the income of the assessee.

2 ITA No. 257/CT K/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 12- 201 3

4.

On appeal, the CIT(A) found that out of Rs.1,36,58,901/-, an

amount of Rs.1,25,02,145/- has been deposited within the grace period

allowed by the Employees Provident Fund Act and, therefore, he deleted

the addition of Rs.1,25,02,145/-. However, the CIT(A) sustained the

addition of Rs.11,56,756/- being the amount paid beyond the due date.

5.

Before us, ld A.R. submitted that as the employees contribution is

deposited before the due date of filing return of income u/s.139(1),

therefore, same deserves to be allowed.

6.

Ld D.R. supported the order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of lower

authorities and materials available on record. In the instant case, the

Assessing Officer has disallowed Rs.1,36,58,901/- u/s.2(24)(x) r.w.s

36(1)(va) of the Act towards employees contributions to PF as the same

were not deposited within the due date prescribed under the Act.

8.

On appeal, the CIT(A) found that except an amount of

Rs.11,56,756/- , other payments have been deposited within the grace

period and, accordingly, sustained the addition of Rs.11,56,756/-.

9.

On perusal of assessment order, we find that the due date for

payment of employees’ contribution to PF for the month of march,2012

was 15.4.2012 and the assessee has deposited the amount on 6.6.2012.

Hence, the amount is deposited before filing of the return of income

u/s.139(1) of the Act. We find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

3 ITA No. 257/CT K/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 12- 201 3

case of Pr. CIT vs Rajasthan Beverage Corporation Ltd., (2017) 84

Taxman. Com 185 (SC), has held as under:

“Section 43B, read with section 36(1)(va), of the Income Tax Act, 1961-Business disallowance-certain deduction to be allowed only on `actual payment (PF & ESI construction)- High Court by the impugned order held that amount claimed on payment of PF and ESI having been deposited on or before due date of filing of returns, same could not be disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va)- Whether SLP against said impugned order was to be dismissed-Held yes (p-ara 2) in favour of assessee. 10. Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the

case of Rajasthan Beverage Corporation Ltd., (supra), we delete the

addition of Rs.11,56,756/- sustained by the CIT(A) and allow the grounds

of appeal of the assessee.

11.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced on 20/03/2018. Sd/- sd/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (N.S Saini) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 20 /03/2018 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : The Orissa State Co- operative Milk Producers Federation Lt., Plot No.D-2, Sahid Nagar, Bhubaneswar 2. DCIT, Circle 4(1), The Respondent. Bhubaneswar. 3. The CIT(A)-2, Bhubaneswar 4. Pr.CIT-2, Bhubaneswar BY ORDER, 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //True Copy// SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, Cuttack

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 →