SHRI ARUN RAMANLAL SHAH,AHMEDABAD vs. THE DCIT CPC, BANGLURU

PDF · subscribers
ITA 381/AHD/2020Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 September 2022AY 2017-183 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 held that the late payment of Employees Provident Fund/ESI contributions were disallowable. This decision was supported by a jurisdictional High Court ruling.

What were the facts?

The assessee's income was assessed higher due to an addition of Rs. 7,89,538/- for late deposited PF/ESI contributions. The CIT(A) upheld this addition after the assessee's rectification application failed to delete it.

What were the issues?

Whether late deposited PF/ESI contributions are disallowable expenses. Whether the CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(i)(va),Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA & Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 08.08.2022Pronounced: 07.09.2022

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

1.

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order dated 06.01.2020 passed by the CIT(A)-3, Ahmedabad for the Assessment Year 2017-18.

2.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

“1) The order passed u/s.250 on 06.01.20 for A.Y. 2017-18 by CIT(A)-3, A- bad upholding addition of Rs.7,89,538/- u/s.36(i)(va) is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice.

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 additions.

3) The Ld. CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts upholding addition of Rs.6,89,538/- u/s.36(i)(va) made by AO

Page 2 of 3 4) It is therefore prayed that addition of Rs.7,89,538/- u/s.36(i)(va) upheld by CIT)A)-3 should be deleted.”

3.

The assessee is an individual carrying on business of manufacturing of filter press machineries. The assessee filed his return of income on 24.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.84,07,732/-. The assessee received intimation under Section 143(1) of the Income tax Act, 1961 dated 21.03.2019 assessing the income of Rs.86,43,320/- i.e. income assessed more by Rs.8,08,256/- which consists of Rs.18,718/- being land revenue under Section 43B of Rs.7,89,538/- being PF/ESI late deposited under Section 36(i)(va) of the Act. Against the intimation the assessee filed rectification under Section 154 of the Act and while processing the application under Section 154 the addition of Rs.18,718/- under Section 43B was deleted whereas addition made u/s.36(i)(va) of Rs.7,89,538/- was sustained and not deleted.

4.

Being aggrieved by the intimation along with rectification under Section 154 of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

At the time fo hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite giving notice which was duly served to the assessee. Therefore, we are taking the submissions of the assessee made before the CIT(A) as the submissions before us.

6.

The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused all the relevant material available on record. There is a delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal but the stated period is coming in the Covid-19 epidemic. Therefore, the delay is condoned. The issue contested by the assessee in the present appeal is already covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation in Tax Appeal No.637 of 2013 dated 26.12.2013. Thus, the appeal of the assessee does not sustain as the late payment of Employees Provident Fund/ESI contributions were disallowed and the same was confirmed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on this 7th day of September, 2022.

More judgments on Section 36(i)(va)

All 53 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(i)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →