DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 15(3)1, MUMBAI vs. RAY ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED , MUMBAI

O R D E R

PER AMARJIT SINGH, JM:

2. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the assessing officer be restored.”

2 A.Y. 2013-14 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income declaring total income to the tune of Rs.14,76,11,310/-. The return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( in short “the Act”). Thereafter, the case was selected for scrutiny under CASS. Notices u/s.142(1) and 143(2) of the Act were issued and served upon the assessee. The assessee company is engaged in the business of construction of civil and structural works, Earth excavation work, road construction and electrical and mechanical work etc. The assessee deducted the provident fund and made the payment delayed to the Provident fund. The total payment was to the tune of Rs.2,36,70,303/-. Since the payment was made delayed, therefore, the said delayed payment was added to the income of the assessee. The total income of the assessee was assessed to the tune of Rs.17,12,81,610/- and accordingly taxed. The book profit was assessed to the tune of Rs.14,53,08,939/-. Feeling aggrieved the assessee filed the appeal before the CIT(A) who allowed the claim of the assessee, therefore, the revenue has filed the present appeal before us. ISSUE NO.1:- 4. Under this issue the revenue has challenged the allowance of the claim of the assessee in connection with delayed contribution to the Provident Fund. The Learned representative of the department has argued that the assessee failed to deposit the contribution of Provident fund of employees to the provident fund well in time, therefore, the Assessing 3 A.Y. 2013-14 Officer has rightly disallowed the claim of the assessee and added the said amount to the income of the assessee but the CIT(A) has wrongly allowed the claim of the assessee, therefore, the finding of the CIT(A) is wrong, against law and facts and is liable to set aside. However, the learned representative of the assessee has argued that the contribution of employees to Provident Fund of was deposited before the last date of filing of the return of income, therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly allowed the claim of the assessee. In view of the arguments advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record, we noticed that the facts of the deposit the Contribution of Employees Provident Fund with the provident fund before the last date of filing the return is not in dispute. If the contribution of the employees provident fund be deposited before the last date of filing the return of income then the claim of the assessee is not liable to be declined in view of the decision of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in case titled as CIT Vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. The CIT(A) has also relied upon the decision of assessee’s own case for A.Y.2012-13 vide ITA No.399 of 2012 dated 11th July 2014. The facts are not distinguishable at this stage. The factual position is the same, therefore, taking into account of all the circumstances, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has passed the order judiciously and correctly which is not liable to be interfere with at this appellate stage. Accordingly, these issues are decided in favour of the assessee against the revenue.