Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश / O R D E R
PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
ITA No.3426/Mds/2016 is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-8, Chennai, in dated 20.10.2016 for the AY 2011-12.
ITA No.3426/Mds/2016 :- 2 -:
Mrs.R. Bhavya, Adv., represented on behalf of the Respondents and Mr. Sasikumar, JCIT, represented on behalf of the Appellants.
It is submitted by the Ld.AR that the issue in the appeal of the Revenue was against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in allowing the assessee’s claim of the employees’ contribution to PF which has been paid before the due date of the filing of the return. It was a submission that Ld.CIT(A) has allowed the assessee’s claim by following the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s.Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd. in Tax Case (Appeal) Nos.585 & 586 of 2015 dated 24.07.2015 wherein Para Nos.5 & 6 as held as under:
5. We find that the Tribunal has rightly relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of. CIT V. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306, whereby, the Supreme Court held that omission of second proviso to Section 435 and amendment to first proviso by Finance Act, 2003 are curative in nature and are effective retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 1.4.1988 i.e., the date of insertion of first proviso. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V. Amil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 held that if the assessee had deposited employee’s contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI after due date as prescribed under the relevant Act, but before the due date of filing of return under the Income Tax Act, no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of Section 435 as amended by Finance Act, 2003.
6. In the present case, the assessee had remitted the employees contribution beyond the due date for payment, but within the due date for filing the return of income. Hence, following the above-said decisions, we find no reason to differ with the findings of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we find no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, both the Tax Case (Appeals) stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 is also dismissed.
In reply, the Ld.DR submitted that the Revenue has filed a Review Petition before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s.Industrial Security & Intelligence India Pvt. Ltd. and the same is pending.
ITA No.3426/Mds/2016 :- 3 -:
We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the Ld.CIT(A) has followed the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras under appeal, we have found no reason in the order of the Ld.CIT(A), consequently the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on June 12, 2017, at Chennai.