GDC ADVERTISING PVT LTD., HYD,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 724/HYD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 January 2018AY 2011-123 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that since similar commission payments were allowed in a prior AY after detailed inquiry by the AO, the current AY's claim should also be allowed. The Tribunal further held that delayed PF payments made before the return filing date are allowable as per Supreme Court decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) for non-appearance. The assessee contended that similar commission payments were allowed in a previous AY after being remitted back to the AO for inquiry. The assessee also claimed delayed PF payments were made before filing the return of income.

What were the issues?

Whether commission payments to agencies and delayed PF remittances are allowable deductions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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, HYDERABAD BENCH ‘A, HYDERABAD

Before: SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao
For Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik
Hearing: 18/01/2018Pronounced: 24/01/2018

PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM:

This appeal, filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) - 2, Hyderabad, dated 29/01/2016, relates to the AY 2011-12. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-appearance on the date of hearing. It is noticed from his order that CIT(A) has given number of opportunities.

2.

Before us, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted a letter claiming to be submitted before CIT(A) seeking adjournment on the date of hearing. However, this letter does not contain any confirmation of such submission, we cannot accept the evidence submitted before us. However, CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal on merits also.

3.

Ld. AR brought to our notice that in this AY there were two issues, viz., i) relating to commission payment to agencies

2 I.T.A. No. 724/Hyd/2016 GDC Advertising Pvt. Ltd. and ii) relating to delay in remittance of PF. He submitted that in earlier AY similar issue of payment of commission was raised by the assessee in AY 2010-11, when assessee appealed against the order of AO before the ITAT, the ITAT in its order in ITA No. 1690/Hyd/2013, dated 16/05/2014 (refer page 42 of paper book) remitted the issue back to the file of the AO for necessary enquiry with the concerned department/PSUs to find out the genuineness of the payment towards commission. Accordingly, the then AO, verified the issue and allowed the claim of the assessee in AY 2010-11 by passing a consequential order, which is placed on record at pages 46 to 48 of the paper book.

4.

On the other hand, ld. DR objected to the submissions of ld.AR and submitted that some of the payments were made to employees also.

5.

Considered the rival submissions and perused material on record. We find that similar payments were made in AY 2010-11 and the coordinate bench of this Tribunal has remitted this issue back to the file of the AO to make necessary enquiry for the payment of commission and, the then AO has verified the issue in detail, which was discussed in the consequential order passed by him dated 30/12/2016. We find that the payments were made to the similar agencies in current AY also. Since the AO’s predecessor has made enquiries on the payment of commission and collected the detailed information from agencies u/s 133(6) of the Act, we are inclined to accept the contention of the assessee and allow the ground raised by the assessee.

5.1 With regard to delay in payment of PF, we find that the assessee has made payment relating to PF beyond the due

3 I.T.A. No. 724/Hyd/2016 GDC Advertising Pvt. Ltd. date as stipulated in the PF Act, with a delay of few days, but, remitted the same before filing of return of income. The coordinate benches of Tribunal have consistently followed the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions 319 ITR 306 wherein it was held that the contributions to P.F. and ESI are allowable under section 43B of the Act if they are paid before the due date of filing of the return of income and allowing the payments towards PF, if they are paid before filing of the return of income. Therefore, we allow this ground of appeal of the assessee as the assessee has remitted the payments towards PF before filing of the return of income.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Pronounced in the open court on 24th January, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hyderabad, dated 24th January, 2018

kv

More judgments on Section 43B

All 7,161 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →