ACIT, CIRCLE-14(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S AMBUJA REALITY DEVELOPMENT LIMITED, KOLKATA

Ground no. 1 of the revenue’s appeal reads as under:

Brief facts of the case are that the AO made the disallowance of Rs.3,30,487/- by invoking sec. 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) on account of making payment for the employee’s PF after the due date. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance on the ground that the contribution was claimed to have Ambuja Reality Development Ltd.., AY- 2012-13 been deposited before the due date as provided u/s. 139(1) of the Act for filing return. Aggrieved, revenue is before us.

We have heard rival submissions and gone through facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the employees’ PF payments are within the due date of filing of return of income by the assessee u/s. 139(1) of the Act and once these payments are within the said due date, the issue is covered by the judgment of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Vijay Shree Limited vide ITAT No. 245 of 2011 in GA No.2607 of 2011 dated 7th September, 2011, wherein it has been held as under: “After hearing Mr. Sinha, learned advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant and after going through the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Alom Extrusion Ltd., we find that the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has held that the amendment to the second proviso to the Sec. 43(B) of the Income Tax Act, as introduced by Finance Act, 2003, was curative in nature and is required to be applied retrospectively with effect from 1st April, 1988. Such being the position, the deletion of the amount paid by the Employees’ contribution beyond due date was deductible by invoking the aforesaid amended provisions of Section 43(B) of the Act. We, therefore, find that no substantial question of law is involved in this appeal and consequently, we dismiss this appeal.”

Brief facts of the case are that the AO disallowed the expenses of Rs.75,49,934/- by invoking sec. 14A read with Rule 8D of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance by relying on the decisions of CIT Vs. Cortech Energy Pvt. Ltd. 223 Taxman 130 and REI Agro Ltd. Vs. DCIT 144 ITD 141 on the ground that as no dividend was earned disallowance u/s. 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules is not called for. Aggrieved, revenue is before us.

We have heard rival submissions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) relying on the decisions in the case of Cortech Energy Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and REI Agro Ltd. (supra) deleted the disallowance of expenses of Rs.75,49,934/- by observing as under:

We find that the factual finding as recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) was not controverted by the Ld. DR before us by providing any material, therefore, we do not find any justification to interfere in the aforesaid order of the Ld. CIT(A) and hence, the same is hereby confirmed. This ground of appeal of revenue is, therefore, dismissed.

In the result, appeal of revenue is dismissed.