ADANI MURMUGAO PORT TERMINAL PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 497/AHD/2020Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 July 2022AY 2017-182 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the disallowance of employees' PF contribution made after the due date. The decision was based on the jurisdictional High Court's ruling in a similar case.

What were the facts?

The assessee confirmed disallowance of Rs. 1,20,681/- for employees' PF contribution made after the due date but within the return filing deadline. The Assessing Officer disallowed it, and the CIT(A) upheld the disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether employees' contribution to Provident Fund paid after the due date but before the due date for filing the return of income is allowable as a deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 139(1)

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, “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI PRAMOD M JAGTAP&

For Appellant: Shri Biren Shah, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Mukesh Thakwani, Sr. DR
Hearing: 11.07.2022Pronounced: 13.07.2022

The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.08.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad arising out of the order dated 24.12.2019 passed by the ITO, Ward-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2017-18.

2.

The grounds of appeal

raised by the assessee are read as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the appellant, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance of Rs. 1,20,681/- being Employees’ contribution to Provident Fund made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that the aforesaid payment was made after the due date prescribed under relevant Act, even though the payment was made within the time prescribed under section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961 for filing the return of income.

2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

3.

At the time of hearing of the instant appeal the Ld. Counsel appearing for the assessee with all his fairness submitted before us that the issue relating

Adani Murmugao Port Terminal P. Ltd. vs. ITO Asst.Year –2017-18 - 2 - to deposit of Provident Fund and ESIC Contribution on the identical facts and circumstances of the case has been decided against the assessee by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. GSRTC, reported in 366 ITR 170.

4.

On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. relied upon the order passed by the authorities below.

5.

Having heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the order passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the issue involved we do not find any ambiguity in the order of addition made by the authorities below. Hence, respectfully relying upon the same we upheld the order impugned before us. Therefore, assessee’s appeal is found to be devoid of any merit and thus, dismissed.

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →