ARVIND GOODHILL SUIT MANUFACTURING PVT. LTD,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1362/AHD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 April 2022AY 2016-173 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 dismissed the appeal, acknowledging that the matter was squarely covered against the assessee by a jurisdictional High Court judgment. The assessee's representative conceded that the appeal was against them.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against a disallowance of Rs. 73,59,568 made by the Assessing Officer for late payment of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC. The CIT(A) confirmed this disallowance, allowing only a small portion related to ESIC payment due to a Sunday.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESIC is justified when paid after the due date prescribed under Section 36(1)(va), even if deposited before the due date under Section 43B.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43B,Section 36(1)(va)

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 MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR

For Appellant: Shri Dhrunal Bhatt, A.R, Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr. D.R

The appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad (‘CIT(A)’ in short) vide Appeal No. CIT(A)-1/DCIT Cir.1(1)(1)/10280/2018-19 dated 15.07.2019 arising in the assessment order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY. 2016-17.

Goodhill Suit Mfg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT] A.Y. 2016-17 - 2 -

2.

The ground of appeal raised by assessee reads as under:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance to the extent of Rs.73,59,568 out of the total disallowance of Rs.75,18,628/- made by the learned Assessing Officer in respect5 of late payment of employees’ contribution to P.F. and ESIC. “

3.

The only disputed issue in this appeal, as reflected in the relevant grounds of appeal, is the disallowance sustained by the learned CIT(A) to the extent of Rs.73,59,568 on account of late payment of employees' contribution to P.F. and ESIC. The Assessing Officer made total disallowance of Rs.75,18,628/- out of which contribution to ESIC of Rs.1,59,060/- was paid by the assessee-company on 22nd June, 2015 as against the due date of 21st June, 2015. The learned CIT(A) allowed deduction in respect of the aforesaid sum of Rs.1,59,060/- on the ground that 21st June, 2015 was a Sunday and on that account payment could not have been made by the appellant-company. However, the disallowance of the remaining amount of Rs.73,59,568/- was confirmed by the learned CIT(A).

4.

At the time of hearing ld. A.R. Shri Dhrunal Bhatt fairly conceded that matter is against the assessee in view of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court order in the case of CIT vs. GSRTC and requested that he does not want to contest the appeal. Since ld. A.R. has conceded himself and matter is against him squarely covered by judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the matter of CIT vs. GSRTC 366 ITR 170 wherein it is held 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 (Employees contribution) - Whether where an employer has not credited sum received by it as employees' contribution to employees' account in relevant fund Goodhill Suit Mfg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT] A.Y. 2016-17 - 3 - 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 - Assesses 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 employees contribution was deposited before filing return - Whether since assessee had not 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.

Since, matter is squarely covered against the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, thus, in view of the above, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed.

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 28/04/2022

Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 28/04/2022 True Copy S.K.SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।

More judgments on Section 43B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →