ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-7(1)(2), BANGALORE vs. M/S VALUE POINT SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 449/BANG/2017Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 September 2017AY 2013-144 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 held that since the payments were made within the grace period and well before the due date for filing the return, no disallowance could be made. The order of the CIT(Appeals) was confirmed.

What were the facts?

The assessee made employee contributions to PF after the prescribed due date but within the grace period and before the due date for filing the return. The Assessing Officer disallowed these contributions.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in allowing employee PF contributions remitted after the due date but within the grace period and before the return filing due date, considering the provisions of Section 43B.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(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, “A” BENCH : BANGALORE

Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI A.K. GARODIA

For Appellant: Shri B.R. Ramesh, Jt. CIT(DR)
For Respondent: Shri B.T. Shetty, CA
Hearing: 19.09.2017Pronounced: 28.09.2017

Date of hearing : 19.09.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 28.09.2017 O R D E R

Per Sunil Kumar Yadav, Judicial Member

1.

This appeal is preferred by the revenue against the order of the CIT(Appeals) inter alia on the following grounds:-

“1. The order of the learned CIT(A) is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) is justified in law in not considering the provisions of Section 36(1) of the I. T. Act"?

3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) is justified in law in considering that the contribution of PF remitted by the employer after due date prescribed is not in contravention to the provisions of section 43B of the I. T. Act"? 4. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the CIT(A) in so far as it relates to the above grounds may be reversed and that of the Assessing Officer may be restored. 5. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or delete any of the grounds mentioned above.”

2.

The ld. counsel for the assessee has invited our attention that the assessee has made the payments of employee contribution towards PF during the grace period and even before the due date of filing of the return, but the AO has disallowed the payments against which an appeal was filed before the CIT(Appeals) with the submission that the payments were made during the grace period. The CIT(Appeals) re-examined the issue in the light of judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s. Essae Tereoka (P) Ltd. v. DCIT, 366 ITR 408 (Kar) and deleted the addition of Rs.36,24,844.

3.

Aggrieved, the revenue has preferred an appeal before the Tribunal and placed reliance upon the order of the AO; whereas the ld. counsel for the assessee has contended that contribution to PF was made on 17.7.12 and 17.9.12, 17.10.12 & 17.1.13. Since the payment was made within the grace period of 5 days, the same was allowed as per Circular and also the judgment of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court. The ld. counsel for the assessee has further explained the delay for few days on account of Saturday & Sunday.

4.

Having carefully examined the orders of lower authorities, we find that the payments towards contribution to PF were made during the grace period. Now it has been repeatedly held that even if the payment is made before the due date for filing of the return, it should be allowed. Keeping in view the legal provisions, since we find that the payments towards contribution to PF were made well before the due date for filing of the return, no disallowance can be made. Accordingly, we confirm the order of the CIT(Appeals).

5.

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed.

Pronounced in the open court on this 28th day of September, 2017.

Sd/- Sd/-

( A.K. GARODIA ) ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 28th September, 2017.

More judgments on Section 36(1)

All 49 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →