Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI ‘ SMC’ BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI N.S SAINI
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of
the CIT(A), Hazaribag, dated 20.6.2017 for the assessment year
2014-15.
In Ground No.A & B of the appeal, the grievance of the
assessee is that the CIT(A) was not was not justified in confirming
the addition made towards EPF and ESIC on the ground that the
same was not deposited within the due date prescribed under the
respective Act..
P a g e 1 | 4
ITA No. 241/R an/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 14- 15 :
Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer observed
that the assessee has not deposited employees’ contribution to
Provident Fund of Rs.6,50,138/- and employees’ contribution to ESIC
of Rs.1,05,924/- within the due date prescribed under the respective
Act, therefore, he added the same to the total income of the assessee
u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act.
On appeal the CIT(A) confirmed the action of Assessing Officer
as there was no compliance from the side of the assesse.
Before me, the A.R of the assessee submitted that in view of the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State
Beverages Corporation Ltd., [2017] 84 taxmann.com 185 (SC), no
disallowance of deduction for employees’ contribution to PF & ESIC is
to be made where the amount is deposited by the assessee within the
time prescribed for filing return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act.
The DR could not controvert the above submission of the AR of the assessee.
After hearing rival submissions and perusing the material on
record, I find that it is not in dispute that the assesse has deposited
employees’ contribution to Provident Fund of Rs.6,50,138/- and
employees’ contribution to ESIC of Rs.1,05,924/- within the due date
prescribed u/s.139(1) of the Act as is evident from page 2 and 3 of the
P a g e 2 | 4
ITA No. 241/R an/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 14- 15 :
assessment order. The addition was made on the ground that the
employees’ contribution to PF and ESIC was not deposited within the
time prescribed under the P.F.Act. I find that no disallowance can be
made for deduction of the same u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act in view of the
decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State
Beverages Corporation Ltd., [2017] 84 taxmann.com 185 (SC), where
it was held as under :-
“ Section 43B, read with section 36(1)(va), of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance - Certain deductions to be allowed only on actual payment (PF and ESI contribution) - High Court by 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 [Para 2] [In favour of assessee]”
Respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of Rajasthan State Beverages Corporation Ltd. (supra), I set
aside the orders of lower authorities and delete the addition of
Rs.6,50,138/- towards EPF payment and Rs.1,05,924/- towards ESI
payment.
In Ground No.C of the appeal, the grievance of the assesse is
that the interest paid on the delayed deposit also being follow –up
expenses are also to be considered and allowable as deduction.
P a g e 3 | 4
ITA No. 241/R an/ 2017 Asse ssment Year : 20 14- 15 :
No arguments were advanced by ld A.R. of the assesse on this
ground and, therefore, same is dismissed for want of prosecution.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed
Order pronounced on 26/11/2018.
Sd/- (N.S Saini) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ranchi; Dated 26/11/2018 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : M/s. Muskan Hospital & Research Centre, Ram Nagar Colony, CHAS, Bokaro Steel City, Jharkhand
The Respondent. DCIT, Circle-3, Bokaro 3. The CIT(A)- Hazaribag 4. Pr.CIT- Hazaribag 5. DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. Guard file. By order //True Copy//
Sr. Pvt.Secretary, ITAT, Ranchi on tour
P a g e 4 | 4