SAHAYOG MICROFINANCE LTD vs. ASST CIT 8(1)(2), MUMBAI

The assessee is contesting disallowance of provident fund payments by invoking provisions of section 43B of the Act.

I heard the parties and perused the record. The assessee is non-banking finance company. The Assessing Officer noticed that the employees contribution to provident fund amounting to ` 3,63,887/- was paid by the assessee after the due date prescribed under the Provident Fund Act and accordingly he disallowed the same by invoking provisions of section 43B of the Act. The learned CIT(A) confirmed the same and hence the assessee has filed this appeal before us.

Learned AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has erroneously taken the amount of employees contribution of ` 3,63,887/-. He submitted that the employees contribution was ` 1,88,193/- and remaining amount of `

I heard learned Departmental Representative and perused the record. I noticed that the details of payment of provident fund amount of ` 3,63,887/- is not available on record. Further assessee contends that the employees contribution was actually ` 1,88,193/- and remaining amount represents employers contribution. Since the facts are not clear on this issue, I am of the view that this issue requires fresh examination at the end of the Assessing Officer in the light of the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, I set aside the order passed by the learned CIT(A) on this issue and restore the same to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction to examine this issue afresh by following the decision rendered by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd.(supra). After providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee, the Assessing Officer may take appropriate decision in accordance with law.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order has been pronounced in the Court on 7.6.2017.