THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX vs. LATE KARI THIMMEGOWDA RAJASHEKHARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA/441/2022HC KarnatakaKAHC01041228202213 September 2022Bench: P.S.DINESH KUMAR,UMESH M ADIGA3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the questions of law raised in the appeal were covered by a previous decision in Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd. The amendment to Section 43B, which came into effect after the judgment in the cited case, did not warrant reconsideration of the appeal.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against an ITAT order that set aside the disallowance made under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed remittance of employees' contribution to PF and ESI. The ITAT held that such disallowance was covered under Section 43B, despite a later amendment and CBDT circular.

What were the issues?

Whether disallowance for delayed remittance of employees' contribution to PF/ESI is covered under Section 43B, considering amendments and CBDT circulars.

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(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.

ITA No. 441 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.441 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU-560 001.

2.

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5 (2) (1) CPC, BENGALURU PRESENT ADDRESS DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE (1) C R BUILDING QUEENS ROAD BENGALURU -560 001. …APPELLANTS

(BY SHRI. M.DILIP, ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. K.V.ARAVIND, ADVOCATE) AND: LATE KARI THIMMEGOWDA RAJASHEKHARA L/R BY Ms. MEGHA B.R NO.321 TSP ROAD, KALASIPALYA BENGALURU -560 002. …RESPONDENT

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SEC.260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 19/04/2022 PASSED IN ITA NO.669/BANG/2021, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2019-2020. PRAYING THAT THIS COURT MAY

Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

ITA No. 441 of 2022

BE PLEASED TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW STATED THEREIN AND ETC.,

THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal by the Revenue is filed to consider the following questions of law; "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances on the case, setting aside disallowance made under section 36(1)(va) by holding that the disallowance on ground of delay in remittance of employees contribution to PFE and eSI is also covered in Section 43B of the Act ignoring the latest amendment to provisions of Section 43B of the Act and CBDT Circular which clarifies that the disallowance in question is not covered in Section 43B of the Act. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances on the case, order passed by the Tribunal can be said as perverse in nature in setting aside addition of Rs.4,40,51,056 representing employees share of contribution to ESI/PF to the extent not paid ton or before the due date as mentioned in Section 36(1)(va) of the Act as assessee has not remitted the said amount within prescribed time?"

2.

Shri Dilip, learned standing counsel for the Revenue, in his usual fairness, submitted that the issue raised by the revenue are covered in Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of

ITA No. 441 of 2022

Income-tax, Circle -11(3)1. However, he submitted that amendment has been brought after the judgment in aforesaid case. Therefore, the matter merits consideration. 3. Admittedly, the relevant assessment year for consideration in this appeal is 2019-2020. Amendment has been brought on 01.04.2022. Hence, in our view, the questions of law are covered by the decision in Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd. Hence, questions of law raised in this appeal do not merit consideration. Resultantly, this appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- JUDGE

Sd/- JUDGE

AV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

1 [2014] 43 taxmann.com 33 (Karnataka)

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →