Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(KZ) & Shri A.T. Varkey
Per Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President (KZ):- This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Kolkata dated 11.01.2018 and the grounds raised by the Revenue therein read as under:- (1) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.91,76,483/- on account of depositing the PF/ESI payment beyond the prescribed time despite the fact that as per section 36(1)(va) employees contribution should have been deposited in time as prescribed in the relevant law. Section 43B permits Assessment Year: 2010-2011 M/s. Magnum Clothing Pvt. Limited
delayed payment if paid before filing of ROI as per section 139(1) in case of employer’s contribution as laid down in Circular No. 22/2015 dated 17.12.2015. (2) That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs.64,344/- u/s 14A of the I.T. Act, 1961.
We have heard the arguments of both the sides and also perused the relevant material available on record. As agreed by the ld. Representatives of both the sides, the issue involved in Ground No. 1 is squarely covered in favour of the assessee, inter alia, by the decision of the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Vijay Shree Limited (ITAT 245 of 2011 dated 06.09.2011), wherein it was held that delayed payment of employees contribution towards P.F. cannot be disallowed under section 43B if the same is deposited before the due date of filing of the return of income. Respectfully following the said decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, we uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) giving relief to the assessee on this issue and dismiss Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal.
As regards the Ground No. 2, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the issue involved therein relating to disallowance under section 14A is also squarely covered in favour of the assessee, inter alia, by the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited –vs.- CIT [378 ITR 33], wherein it was held that no disallowance under section 14A can be made if no exempt income is actually earned by the assesese in the relevant year. Since no exempt income in the form of dividend, etc. was actually earned by the assessee during the year under consideration, we respectfully follow the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cheminvest Limited (supra) and uphold the impugned order of the ld. CIT(Appeals) deleting the disallowance made Assessment Year: 2010-2011 M/s. Magnum Clothing Pvt. Limited by the Assessing Officer under section 14A. Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is accordingly dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on February 28, 2019.