M/S. VIJEET FACILITY MANAGEMENT PVT. LTD.,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-8(4), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3210/AHD/2014Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 January 2018AY 2010-115 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the employees' contribution to ESI and PF, if not credited to the employees' account in the relevant fund on or before the due date, is not eligible for deduction, even if deposited before the due date prescribed under Section 43B. The appeal was dismissed following the Gujarat High Court judgment.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed deduction for employees' contribution to ESI and PF. The Assessing Officer disallowed this deduction as the contributions were paid after the due date. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance for employees' contribution.

What were the issues?

Whether employees' contribution to ESI and PF is deductible if deposited after the due date but before the due date for filing the return of income.

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, “ D ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD

For Respondent: Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. D.R
Pronounced: 15/01/2018

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This is an appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-XIV, Ahmedabad, vide appeal no.CIT(A)-XIV/ITO/Ward-8(4)/54/2013-14 dated 09/09/2014 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11, on the following Grounds:

ITA No.3210/Ahd/2014 M/s. Vijeet Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2010-11 - 2 - 1.1 The order passed u/s.250 on 09-09-2014 for A.Y.2010-11 by CIT(A)-XIV, Abad upholding the disallowance of employees contribution to ESI and PF aggregating to Rs.11,80,059/- u/s. 36(1)(va) made by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the submissions made and evidence produced by the appellant with regard to the impugned disallowance. 2.1 The Ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of employees contribution to ESI and PF aggregating to Rs.11,80,059/- u/s. 36(1)(va) made by AO. 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Ld.CIT(A) ought not to have upheld the disallowance of employees contribution to ESI and PF aggregating to Rs.11,80,059/- u/s. 36(1)(va) made by AO. 2.3 The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding that the employees contribution to ESI and PF aggregating to Rs.11,80,059/- were deposited belatedly. 2. The relevant facts as culled out from the materials on record are as under:- The appellant is a closely held company and engaged in the business of housekeeping, cleaning and manpower supply services. It maintains proper and regular books of accounts which are subject to statutory and tax audit. It had filed its return of income for A.Y.2010-11 on 01-10-2010 declaring total income of Rs.17,65,100/-.

2.1 During the course of asstt. proceedings, the AO noticed that the appellant had claimed deduction of Rs.22,82,652/- being the employers

ITA No.3210/Ahd/2014 M/s. Vijeet Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2010-11 - 3 - & employees contribution to P.F. and ESI which was paid late than the due date of payment. The total amount of employers & employees contribution to PF & ESI was Rs.27,94,614/-. However, the AO rejected the same on the ground that the said contribution were paid beyond the due date as provided under P.F and ESI Act. Hence, the same was disallowed u/s.43B.

3.

Being aggrieved, the appellant preferred appeal to CIT(A) when it was pointed out that out of the total amount of Rs.27,94,614/-, employers contribution to P.F. and ESI consisted of Rs.11,27,927/- and Rs.4,86,628/-, thus aggregating to Rs.16,14,555/- whereas the employees contribution consisted of Rs.11,80,059/- by way of P.F. of Rs.10,00,176/- and ESI of Rs.1,79,883/-. The CIT(A) allowed employers contribution of Rs.9,48,065/- whereas the employees contribution was held to be disallowable in view of decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of GSRTC.

4.

We have gone through the relevant record and impugned order. We direct aforesaid Gujarat High Court judgment, which is against the appellant and relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced 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 (Employee contribution) - Whether where an employer has not

ITA No.3210/Ahd/2014 M/s. Vijeet Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2010-11 - 4 - 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), assesses 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 employee, contribution was deposited before filing return - Whether since assesses had no 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 aforesaid judgment, we are not incline to give any kind of relief to the assessee.

6.

In the result, appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 15/01/2018

Sd/- Sd/- एन.के. �ब�लैया महावीर �साद (लेखा सद�य) (�या�यक सद�य) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Ahmedabad; Dated 15/01/2018 Priti Yadav, Sr.PS

ITA No.3210/Ahd/2014 M/s. Vijeet Facility Management Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2010-11 - 5 -

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-XIV, Ahmedabad. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy//

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad True Copy 1. Date of dictation 10/01/2018 (dictation-pad 2 pages attached at the end of this appeal-file) 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member …15/01/2018 3. Other Member… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S…………….. 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement…… 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S……. 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk………………… 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Despatch of the Order………………

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 →