Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, ‘‘सी’’ �यायपीठ, चे�नई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी अ�ाहम पी. जॉज�, लेखा सद�य एवं �ी धु�वु� आर.एल रे�डी, �या�यक सद�य के सम� Before Shri Abraham P. George, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member आयकर अपील सं./I T.A. No. 2850/Mds/2016 �नधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year:2012-13 & C.O. No. 182/Mds/2016 [In The Deputy Commissioner of M/s. Sun Business Solutions P. Ltd., No. 4/1017, 3rd Cross Street, 9th Link, Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6(2), Vs. 121, M.G. Road, 7th Floor, Nehru Nagar, Kottivakkam, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 041. [PAN:AAPCS2049R] (Appellant) (Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Asish Tripathi, JCIT ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri N. Devanathan, Advocate सुनवाई क� तार�ख/ Date of hearing : 05.09.2017 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 21.09.2017 आदेश /O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal preferred by the Revenue and the Cross Objection filed by the assessee are directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 15, Chennai dated 14.07.2016 relevant to the assessment year 2012-13. The only effective ground raised in the appeal of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in directing to delete the
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in business support services and filed its return of income on 28.09.2012 admitting a total income of ₹.98,71,750/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed from Form 3CD that the assessee has not paid the employee’s contribution towards ESI and PF within the due dates prescribed as per the respective Acts. The total amount of such delayed payments of employee’s contribution towards ESI and PF are ₹.6,50,976/- and ₹.25,29,655/- respectively. Hence, the Assessing Officer disallowed the delayed payments of employee’s contribution towards ESI and PF under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the respective Acts and completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act.
On appeal, after considering the submissions of the assessee and by following the decision in the case of CIT v. Industrial Security and Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd. in TCA Nos. 585 & 586 of 2015 & M.P. No. 1 of 2015 dated 24.07.2015, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made on this account.
Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The main contention of the ld. DR is that the Department has not accepted the 3 & C.O. No.182/M/16 decision in the case of CIT v. Industrial Security and Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and a Review Petition has been filed before the Hon’ble High Court and therefore, pleaded that the order of the ld. CIT(A) should be reverted and restored that of the Assessing Officer. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A). Moreover, in support of the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed Cross Objection against the appeal filed by the Department.
We have heard both sides, perused the materials on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. Since the assessee has not remitted the contribution of employees towards PF and ESI before due date, the Assessing Officer has held that the assessee does not qualify for claiming deduction under section 36(1)(va) of the Act to avail the benefit under section 43B of the Act. By following the decision in the case of CIT v. Industrial Security and Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd. in TCA Nos. 585 & 586 of 2015 & M.P. No. 1 of 2015, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition made on this account. In this case, it is not disputed by the Revenue that the assessee has not paid the employees contribution received by it before the due date of filing of the return. Various Courts including the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Industrial Security and Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held that there can be no deemed addition under section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Act, if the impugned amount has been paid
4 & C.O. No.182/M/16 before the due date of filing of the return. Thus, respectfully following the above decision, the ld. CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal has also followed the above decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in deciding similar issue. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) on this issue and thus, the ground raised by the Revenue is dismissed.
Coming to the Cross Objection, in support of the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed this cross objection. Since we have dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue on merits, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee becomes infructuous and accordingly dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross Objection filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced on the 21st September, 2017 at Chennai.