MARCO CABLES PVT. LTD.,ULHASNAGAR vs. ACIT- CIR. -1, KALYAN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3689/MUM/2018Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 March 2019AY 2012-133 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the issue is covered by the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. The disallowance made for delayed payment of employee's provident fund contribution, which was paid before the due date for filing the return, was directed to be deleted.

What were the facts?

The assessee remitted employees' contribution to the provident fund account before the due date for filing the return. The Assessing Officer made a disallowance in this regard, which was sustained by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance of employee's contribution to provident fund is warranted when paid before the due date of filing the return, considering retrospective amendments to Section 43B.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE

For Appellant: Shri Mayank P. Shah
For Respondent: Shri Kailash Kanojiya
Hearing: 11.02.2019Pronounced: 29.03.2019

O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD (JM) 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Thane [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 22.03.2018 for the A.Y. 2012-13 in sustaining the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer in respect of the employee’s contribution towards provident fund.

2.

Learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the employees contribution to provident fund account was remitted to the Provident Fund

(A.Y: 2012-13) M/s. Marco Cables Pvt. Ltd., Account before due date for filing of return and therefore no disallowance is warranted. He submits that this issue is squarely covered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd., (2014) [270 CTR 478]. Copy is placed on record.

3.

Ld. DR vehemently supported the orders of the authorities below.

4.

On hearing both the sides and perusing the order of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd., (supra), I find that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by this decision wherein their lordships held that, in view of the fact that the amendments to section 43B that were brought about by the Finance Act, 2003 was retrospective in nature, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the addition on account of delayed payment of provident fund of employee’s contribution. Thus, respectfully following the said decision, I direct the Assessing Officer to delete the disallowance made in respect of employees contribution to provident fund which was paid before due date for filing of return. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.

5.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 29th March, 2019

More judgments on Section 43B

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

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →