DCIT CIR 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. TIGER STEEL ENGINEERING INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, NAVI MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1192/MUM/2019Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 March 2020AY 2014-153 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) was correct in deleting the disallowance, relying on High Court and Supreme Court decisions. The Tribunal also noted that the tax effect was below Rs. 50 Lakhs, making the appeal not maintainable as per CBDT Circular.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the deletion of a disallowance of Rs. 64,64,964/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of employees' contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC paid after the due date. The CIT(A) had deleted this disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether employees' contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC paid after the due date but before the due date of filing the return is allowable as a deduction. Whether the appeal is maintainable given the tax effect.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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, MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HON’BLE & SHRI M. BALAGANESH, HON’BLE

For Appellant: Shri Anand Kolage
For Respondent: Shri Amit Pratap Singh
Hearing: 16.03.2020Pronounced: 16.03.2020

O R D E R PER BENCH This appeal is filed by the revenue against order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 26.11.2018 for the A.Y. 2014-15.

2.

The Revenue in its appeal has raised following grounds: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 64,64,964/- on account of employees contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC, which was paid beyond the date prescribed in the relevant Act, (A.Y: 2014-15) M/s. Tiger Steel Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., relying on The decision of the Hon. Apex Court in the case of Alom Extrusion Ltd. 1319 ITR 306) which is not relevant to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act." 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 64.64.964/- on account of employees contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC, which was paid beyond the date prescribed in the relevant Act, thereby ignoring the CBDT Circular No.22/2015 dated 17.12.2015 wherein the issue has been made clear and it is specifically highlighted that the Supreme Court decision in the case of Alom Extrusion Ltd. (319 ITR 306) and the Circular does not apply to claim of employees contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section 36(1)(va) of the Act 3. "The appellant prays that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the above grounds be set aside and that of the AO be restored.

4. The applicant craves leave to add, amend or alter any grounds or add new ground, which may be necessary"

3.

At the time of hearing, assessee through letter dated 12.03.2018 sought an adjournment as the mother of the Vice President-Finance & Accounts was unwell.

4.

On a perusal of the grounds of appeal we find that the only issue raised by the revenue in its appeal is in respect of deleting the disallowance of ₹.64,64,964/- on account of employees contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC. The tax effect in this appeal is less than ₹.50 Lakhs. Even otherwise on merits the Ld.CIT(A) following the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd., [366 ITR 1] and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusion Ltd., [319 ITR 306] deleted

(A.Y: 2014-15) M/s. Tiger Steel Engineering India Pvt. Ltd., the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer observing that contribution payable by the employer to the PF or any other mode for the welfare of the employees was allowable if paid before the due date of filing return. In holding so, we do not see any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A). Thus, since the tax effect is below ₹.50 Lakhs and in view of the CBDT Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08.08.2019 in F.No.279/Misc.142/2007-ITJ (Pt), the appeal of the Revenue is not maintainable and even on merits the issue is covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we sustain the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.

5.

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order Pronounced in the Open Court on the 16th March, 2020

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 →