DCIT 15(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. RAY PROJECTS P. LTD, POWAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1313/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 June 2018AY 2012-133 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 upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding that the issue was covered in favor of the assessee by the Bombay High Court decision in Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. The disallowance was deemed unwarranted.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 11,30,504/- for employee contributions to welfare funds not deposited by the due date, though paid before the return filing due date. The CIT(A) deleted this disallowance, relying on High Court and Apex Court decisions.

What were the issues?

Whether employee contributions to welfare funds, paid after the due date but before the return filing due date, are allowable as a deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 43B

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, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM

For Appellant: Shri Virender Singh
For Respondent: Shri Ashok J. Patil
Hearing: 26.06.2018

O R D E R Per Shamim Yahya, A. M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai dated 18.11.2016 and pertains to the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The grounds of appeal read as under:

1. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting disallowance of non-payment of contribution to funds by the employees for welfare of employees in terms of Section 36(l)(va) of the I.T.Act when the Circular No.22/2015 dated 17/12/2015 issued by the CBDT specifically highlighted that the Circular does not apply to claim of deduction relating to employee's contribution to welfare funds which are governed by section 36(l)(va) of the IT Act.

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. 3. The appellant craves leaves to state that appeal is being filed in view of the the exception mentioned in Para 8 of CBDT's Circular No.21/2015 dated

M/s. Ray Projects Pvt. Ltd. 10.12.2015, wherein it is stated that adverse Judgments relating to such issue should be contested on merits not with standing the tax effect entailed is less than the monetary limits specified in Para 3 of the said Circular.

3.

In this case, the Assessing Officer has disallowed an amount of Rs.11,30,504/- received by the assessee from his employees which were not deposited by the assessee to the employees account in the relevant fund before the due date specified in the relevant act. However, these payments were made before the due date of filing of the return.

4.

Considering the above, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) placing reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court and Hon’ble Apex Court decisions has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. The ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) held as under:

2.4.9 The submissions of the AR and the facts of the case have been considered in the light of the case laws relied upon. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. (366 ITR 1) held that 43B disallowance not applicable to payments made beyond the due date in respect of employees' contribution to PF/ESIC as per provisions of section 36(1)(va). Further, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Alom Extrusion Ltd. (319 ITR 306) held that provisions to section 43B by Finance Act, 2003 is with retrospective effect from 1.4.1998. Accordingly, contribution payable by the employer to the PF or any other mode for the welfare of the employees was allowable if paid before the due date of filing return. In view of the above decisions, the additions made by the AO is unwarranted. The AO is, therefore, directed to delete the same.

5.

Against the above order, the Revenue is in appeal before us.

6.

We have heard both the counsel and perused the material on record. The ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted before us that the issue is squarely covered in M/s. Ray Projects Pvt. Ltd. favour of the assessee by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. 366 ITR 1. In this case, the Hon’ble High Court had decided the issue in favour of the assessee.

7.

Upon careful consideration and hearing both the counsel, we are of the considered opinion that since the issue involved is fairly covered in favour of the assessee by several decisions of the Hon’ble High Court as we referred above. We do not find any infirmity in the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).

Accordingly, we uphold the same.

8.

In the result, this appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 26.06.2018

Similar judgments

Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →