DCIT, TUTICORIN vs. RAJA AGENCIES, TUTICORIN

PDF · subscribers
ITA 339/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 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 confirmed the CIT(A)'s order, following the jurisdictional High Court's decision on PF & ESI contributions and a coordinate bench's decision on the Section 80IA(4) claim. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order allowing the assessee's claim for deduction of employee's PF & ESI contribution paid before the return filing due date. Another issue involved the deletion of disallowance under Section 80IA(4) for developing and operating a container freight station.

What were the issues?

Whether employee's PF & ESI contributions paid before the return filing due date are allowable deductions. Whether a container freight station qualifies for deduction under Section 80IA(4).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 43B,Section 80IA(4)

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, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

Pronounced: 26.09.2017

आदेश / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Madurai, in dated 07.11.2016 for the AY 2013-14.

2.

Mr.A. Srinivasan, JCIT, represented on behalf of the Revenue and Mrs.S.Vidya, CA, represented on behalf of the assessee.

ITA No.339/Mds/2017 :- 2 -:

3.

It was submitted by the Ld.AR that Ground Nos.2.1 & 2.2 were against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in allowing the assessee’s claim for deduction of the employee’s contribution towards PF & ESI paid before the due date for filing of return u/s.139(1). The Ld.DR vehemently supported the order of the AO.

4. In reply, it was submitted by the Ld.AR that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of Industrial Security and Intelligence (India) Pvt. Ltd. in TC Nos.585 & 586/2015 dated 24.07.2015 wherein the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court had followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions reported in 319 ITR 306 and has held the issue in favour of the assessee in so far as if the employee’s contribution towards PF & ESI is deposited after the due date as prescribed under the relevant act but before the due date of filing of the return under the Income Tax Act, no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of Sec.43B of the Act.

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Alom Extrusions, respectfully following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Industrial Security and Intelligence

ITA No.339/Mds/2017 :- 3 -:

(India) Pvt. Ltd. referred to supra, the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) stands confirmed.

6.

It was submitted by the Ld.DR that the issue raised in the Ground Nos.3.1 & 3.2 were against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance made u/s.80IA(4) of the Act by holding that the assessee had developed and operated container freight station which is an Inland Port specified u/s.80IA(4). At the time of hearing, it was fairly agreed by both the sides that the issue is squarely covered by the decision of Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case for the AY 2012-13 in dated 01.08.2016 wherein the Co- ordinate Bench has held as follows:

4.

From the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), it is evident that he has arrived at the above decision by relying on the circular of the CBDT and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court cited supra. Further, the assessee has also produced before us the prescribed Certificate from the Port Trust dated 28.03.2016. In these circumstances, we do not find it necessary to interfere with the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals).

7.

It was submitted by the Ld.DR that the order of the Co-ordinate Bench has not reached its finality.

8.

We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the issue in the Revenue appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Co- ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the assessee’s own case, respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench in the assessee’s own case, the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) stands confirmed.

ITA No.339/Mds/2017 :- 4 -:

9.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.

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 →