M/S DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PLANMAN HR PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5028/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 January 2017AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had paid the employee's contributions before the due date of filing the return. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer failed to distinguish the facts from the precedents cited by the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 7,91,59,691/- for late deposit of employee's contribution to PF, ESIC, and professional tax. The CIT(A) deleted this addition, holding that the payments were made before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1).

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance for late deposit of employee's contribution to PF, ESIC, and professional tax is justified when payments are made before the due date of filing the return under Section 139(1).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(24)(x),Section 36(1)(va),Section 139(1)

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, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S. V. MEHROTRA & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

Hearing: 23.01.2017Pronounced: 23.01.2017

ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 12/07/2016 for A.Y. 2013-14 passed by CIT(A)-7, New Delhi.

2.

The Ground of appeal is as under: 1. “On the facts and under the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,91,59,691/- made by the AO without appreciating the fact that the assessee company did not comply with the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) and 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of payments to be made on or before the due date as prescribed under the law of such funds on account of employees contribution towards provident Fund or any other fund mentioned u/s 2(24)(x).”

3. The assessee company filed its return of income on 01.10.2013 for A.Y. 2013-14 declaring loss of Rs. 35,41,809/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and a notice u/s. 143(2) was issued. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 7,91,59,691/- on account of late deposit of PF, ESIC and professional tax.

4.

The Assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) deleted the addition by holding that the assessee paid the Employees’ contribution to provident fund, ESIC and professional tax before the due date of furnishing the return u/s. 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) held that in view of the legal position in case of CIT vs. M/s. Vinay Cement Ltd. 213 ITR 268 decided by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. (2010) 321 ITR 508 decided by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court, the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the disallowance and deleted the same.

5.

The Ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer has rightly made an addition of Rs. 7,91,59,691/- on account of late deposit of PF, ESIC and professional tax. The Ld. DR further submitted that the case is not covered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court Judgment in case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. But the Ld. DR failed to distinguish the facts as regards to the present assessee to the said case.

6.

The Ld. AR submitted that the case is squarely covered by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court Judgment in case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. in fact in this matter also the assessee made payments of the PF and ESIC before the return was filed. The said finding is given by the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard both the parties. We have perused the Judgment in case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. The CIT(A) has correctly applied the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and also that of Apex Court in case of CIT vs. M/s. Vinay Cement Ltd. 213 ITR 268. The Assessing Officer has not at all distinguished the facts of the assessee and the facts mentioned in these two judgments. There is clear finding by the CIT(A) that the assessee paid the Employees’ contribution to Provident Fund, ESIC and Professional Tax before the due date of furnishing the return u/s. 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, there is no need to interfere with the order of the CIT(A). The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

8.

In result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in Open Court on 23/01/2017.

More judgments on Section 2(24)(x)

All 2,270 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(24)(x) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →