ACIT, JAIPUR vs. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD., JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 122/JPR/2017Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 March 2017AY 2012-134 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 employee's contribution to PF & ESI deposited before the due date of filing the return is allowable. This is based on the jurisdictional High Court's judgments in similar cases.

What were the facts?

The revenue appealed against the deletion of additions made by the AO for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF & ESI. The assessee had deposited these contributions before the due date of filing the return.

What were the issues?

Whether employee's contribution to PF & ESI deposited before the due date of filing the return is allowable as a deduction, and which section governs this provision.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43B,Section 36(1)(va),Section 2(24)(x)

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, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR

Before: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No. 122/JP/2017
ITA No. 124/JP/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, J.M. These two appeals by the revenue are directed against two separate orders of ld. CIT (A)-2, Jaipur dated 28.11.2016 in respect of two different assessees

pertaining to assessment year 2012-13. The revenue has raised the following similar grounds except change in figures in both the appeals :-

2 ITA Nos. 122 & 124/JP/2017 M/s. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & M/s. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.

ITA No. 122/JP/2017 :

“ 1. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,39,08,425/- made by the AO for depositing the employee’s contribution to PF & ESI beyond the prescribed time limit provided in respective Acts.

2.

Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) was justified in holding that employee’s contribution to PF & ESI are governed by the provision of section 43B and not by section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the I.T. Act.”

2.

At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue is

squarely covered by the judgments of various Hon’ble High Courts including Hon’ble

Jurisdictional High Court wherein it has been held that if the employees’ contribution

to ESI and PF is deposited before the due date of filing of the return, the same is

allowable. The ld. Counsel submitted that in the present case the assessee has

deposited the entire amount of employees’ contribution towards ESI and PF before

the due date of filing of the return as is evident from the table given in the

assessment order itself. In support of his contention, the ld. Counsel placed reliance

on the following case laws :-

CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (2014) DTR 131 (Raj.HC) CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., 98 DTR 105 (Raj.HC) CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak SahakariSangh Ltd. (2013) 98 DTR 109 (Raj.HC).

The ld. Counsel, therefore, prayed that the order of ld. CIT (A) be affirmed.

2.1. On the contrary, the ld. D/R supported the order of the Assessing Officer.

3 ITA Nos. 122 & 124/JP/2017 M/s. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & M/s. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.

2.2. We have heard rival contentions, perused the material available on record

and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that the issue

relating to deposit of contribution to ESI and PF is squarely covered by the various

judicial pronouncements of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the assessee’s own

case as cited by the ld. Counsel. The ld. D/R has not controverted the submissions

of the ld. Counsel. Therefore, placing reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble

Rajasthan High Court, we find no reason to interfere in the order of ld. CIT (A), the

same is hereby upheld.

3.

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 08 /03/2017.

Sd/- Sd/- ( HkkxpUn] ½ ( dqy Hkkjr) (BHAG CHAND ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Jaipur Dated:- 08 /03/2017. d/ आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू

1.

The Appellant- The ACIT, Circle-6, Jaipur. 2. The Respondent – M/s. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur & M/s. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd., Jaipur. 3. The CIT(A). 4. The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 122 & 124/JP/2017) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत

4 ITA Nos. 122 & 124/JP/2017 M/s. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd. & M/s. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nigam Ltd.

More judgments on Section 43B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →