ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI vs. ACCESS HEALTH CARE SERVICES PVT LTD., CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 666/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 August 2018AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that it was unclear whether the payments were remitted before the due date specified under Section 139(1). Therefore, the issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed the employees' contribution to PF & ESI for the assessment year 2014-15, as the payments were made beyond the due date. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's appeal based on a jurisdictional High Court decision.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of employees' contribution to PF & ESI is justified when payments are made beyond the due date specified under Section 139(1), and whether the CIT(A) correctly applied the jurisdictional High Court's decision without verifying the payment dates.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, CHENNAI

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

Hearing: 02.08.2018Pronounced: 06.08.2018

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Chennai in dated 18.12.2017 for assessment year 2014-15.

2.

M/s. Access Health Care Services Pvt. Ltd, the assessee, is in the software development – health care. While completing the assessment for assessment year 2014-15, the AO disallowed the Employees contribution towards PF & ESI, as these payments were made beyond the due date under the provisions of Provident Fund Act. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) applying the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of CIT vs Industrial Security and Intelligence India (P)

Ltd., TCA No 585 & 586 of 2015, allowed the assessee’s appeal.

3.

Aggrieved against the order, the Revenue filed this appeal. The Ld. DR argued the case on the lines of grounds of appeal. Per contra, the Ld. AR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A).

4.

We heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material.

Though, the Ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal applying the jurisdictional High Court decision, it is not clear from the assessment order and the order of the Ld. CIT(A), whether the impugned payments were remitted by the assessee before the due date specified u/s. 139(1). In view of the fact, this issue is remitted back to the AO for verification as to whether, the impugned sums were remitted within the due date specified u/s. 139(1). On verification if the AO finds that it was remitted within the due date specified u/s. 139(1), then he shall allow the deduction claimed by the assessee in accordance with the :- 3 -: High Court’s decision. In the facts and circumstances, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on Monday, the 06th day of August, 2018 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →