DCIT, CIR-4(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. M/S SANTIPARA TEA CO. LTD., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 305/KOL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 July 2017AY 2008-20093 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 dismissed the Revenue's appeal. This was based on the fact that the tax effect of the appeal was below Rs. 10 lakhs, making it not maintainable as per CBDT Circular No. 21/2015.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order concerning AY 2008-09. The appeal raised two grounds: one regarding the allowability of employee's PF contribution deposited after the due date but before the return filing date, and another concerning the disallowance of interest paid without TDS.

What were the issues?

The core issues were the timing of deposit for employee's PF contribution to be allowable and the applicability of TDS provisions on interest payments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 2(24)(x),Section 43B,Section 40(a)(ia),Section 194A,Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : KOLKATA

Before: Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM]

Hearing: 24.07.2017Pronounced: 24.07.2017

ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM

This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 16.12.2014 of CIT(A)-IV, Kolkata, relating to AY 2008-09.

2.

Grounds of appeal raised by the revenue read as follows :- “1 That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred on in law as well as on facts in holding that employee's contribution to PF is allowable if deposited within the due date of filing of return u/s 139(1), ignoring the fact that employee's contribution governed by the provisions of section 36(1 )(va) read with section 2(24(X) and as such, employee's contribution to be deposited within the due date as per respective rules, not on actual payment basis as per provisions of section 43B.

2 That on the facts and in circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in holding that on payment of interest to M/s Contemporary Brokers Ltd. of Rs.16,79,297/- did not require deduction of tax u/s 194A and as such, disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) was not warranted, ignoring the fact that the payment was made to M/s Contemporary Brokers Ltd. on account of interest which attracted the provisions of deduction u/s 194A.

3 That the appellant craves for leave to add, delete or modify any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing. “ M/s. Santipara Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. A.Y.2008-09 1

3. It was brought to our notice that the tax effect in respect of the grounds taken by revenue is only Rs.3,83,426/- as computed below :- “Ground No.1 Relief allowed (Rs.) Employees Contribution to PF not deposited within The due dates u/s 36(1)(va) but before filing of The Return 26,07,480 Ground No.2 Disallowance of Interest made u/s 40(a)(ia) as Per the assessment order was Rs.16,79,297 out of Which Rs.11,84,626/- was already treated as Disallowable by the assessee. Hence relief allowed By the CIT(A) was only Rs.4,94,671/- and not Rs.16,70,297/- 4,94,671 Total Relief agitated by the Department 31,02,151

40% of above subject to income tax as per Rule 8D of the I.T.Rules, 1962 12,40,860 Notional Tax payable @30.9% inclusive of cess on Disputed additions 3,83,426”

4.

This position has not been disputed by the department. Since the tax effect in the appeal is less than Rs.10 lakhs and in view of the circular of CBDT NO.21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 the appeal by the revenue where the tax effect is below Rs.,10 lakhs has to be dismissed as not maintainable being contrary to the tenor of the Circular. The appeal of the revenue is accordingly dismissed.

5.

In the result the appeal by the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Court on 24.07.2017.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →