ASST CIT-4(2), MUMBAI vs. HINDUSTAN ORGANIC CHEMICALS LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4899/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 August 2019AY 2013-143 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 disallowance was not justified. It followed the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the assessee's own case which held that delayed payment of employee's contribution to provident fund cannot be disallowed in view of the amendment to Section 43B.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed the deletion of disallowance of employee contribution to provident fund. The Assessing Officer had disallowed the contribution as it was not paid within the due date prescribed under the Act.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of employee's contribution to provident fund is permissible on account of delayed payment, despite the amendment to Section 43B.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),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.

PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by revenue is directed against the order of ld.

1.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9 [hereinafter referred as the ld. CIT(A)], Mumbai dated 14 June 2018, which in turn arises from the assessment order dated 30th December 2015 2016 passed under section 143(3) of the Act. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: (i) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in deleting disallowance of employee contribution to the Provident fund of ₹1,06,51,965/-without appreciating the fact that employees contribution, being in the nature of trust money in the hands of the employer cannot be allowed as a deduction if not paid in the relevant fund before the due date as prescribed in Explanation under section 36. (1)(va) of the Act.

Hindustan Organic Chemical Ltd (AY-2013-14) 2. At the outset of hearing the learned authorised representative (AR) of the assessee submits that the grounds of appeal raised by revenue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in assesses own case for assessment year (AY) 2006 -

7.

The learned AR for the assessee further submits that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) while granting relief to the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in assesses own case. The ld. AR for the assessee furnished the copy of the decision of Hon’ble High Court reported viz;366 ITR 1 (Bom) 3. On the other hand, the learned DR for the revenue after perusal of the grounds of appeal

, fairly conceded that the grounds of appeal raised by revenue is covered in favour of assessee and against the revenue by the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in assesses own case for AY 2006-07. However, the learned DR for the revenue submits that he’s relying upon the order of assessing officer in order to keep the issue alive as the revenue may have challenged the order of High Court in Hon’ble Supreme Court

4. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone through the orders of authorities below. We have noted that the assessing officer during the assessment made the disallowance on account of employee’s contribution to provident fund on the ground 2

Hindustan Organic Chemical Ltd (AY-2013-14) that the same was not deposited with the statutory authorities within prescribed period under Employee Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act. We have noted that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) while following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in assessee own case for AY 2006-07(supra) and deleted the disallowances/ additions, wherein it was held that when the assessee company made the payment of employees contribution towards provident funds, the assesses claim could not be disallowed on account of delayed payments in view of the amendment to section 43B. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, we do not find any merit in the grounds of appeal raised by revenue.

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 →