KAAVIAN SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ITO CORPORATE WARD 4(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2899/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 December 2018AY 2014-153 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 if the employees' contribution to PF and ESI is paid before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1), no disallowance can be made, following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed the employees' contribution to PF and ESI because it was paid after the due date specified under the respective Acts, although it was paid before the due date for filing the return under Section 139(1). The assessee appealed this disallowance.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was whether the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF and ESI paid after the due date of the respective Acts but before the due date of filing the return of income was justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(va),Section 139(1),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.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Appellant: Shri. PV Dilip Kumar, CA, Shri. Homi Rajvansh, CIT
Hearing: 20.12.2018Pronounced: 26.12.2018

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai in 17 dated 21.09.2017 for assessment year 2014-15.

2.

While making the assessment for assessment year 2014-15, in the assessee’s case, M/s. Kaavian Systems Pvt Ltd., the Assessing Officer found from the Form 3CD attached with the return that the employees contribution to PF were paid beyond the due date specified under the relevant Act, although, all such payments were made before the due date for filing the return u/s. 139(1). He disallowed them holding that only employers contribution towards PF is eligible if it was paid before the due date of filing the return of income u/s. 139(1), but not in the case of employees contribution. Hence, he assessed them u/s. 36(va) r.w. 2(24)(x). Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved against the order of the CIT(A), the assessee filed this appeal.

3.

We heard the rival contentions and gone through the relevant material. The fact remains that the assessee has paid the employees contribution to PF & ESI within the due date permitted under Income Tax Act before filing the return, although, it was not paid within the due dates permitted under the respective Act. The relevant portion of the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT vs Industrial Security & Intelligence Pvt Ltd., in TCA No. 585 & 586 of 2015 dated 24.07.2015 is extracted as under:

“5. We find that the Tribunal has rightly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs Alum Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 HR 306, whereby, the Supreme Court held that omission of second proviso to section 43B and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and are effective retrospectively i.e with effect from 1.4. 1 988 i.e. the date of insert fort of first proviso. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V Amil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 held that if the assessee had deposited employee’s contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI after due dates as prescribed under the relevant Act, but before the due date of filing of return under the Income Tax Act, no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of section 43.B as amended by Finance Act, 2003.

6.

In the present case, the assessee had remitted the employees contribution beyond the due date for payment, but within the due date for filing the return of income. Hence, following the above said decision, we find no reason, to differ with the findings of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we find no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, both the Tax case (Appeals) stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of2015 is also dismissed.”

Accordingly, we allow the assessee’s appeal.

4.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 26th day of December, 2018 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 36(va)

All 27 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(va) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →