DCIT 10(2)(1), MUMBAI vs. JORD ENGINEERS INDIA LTD, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 723/MUM/2015Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 November 2016AY 2011-123 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 held that the delayed payment of Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC, if made before the due date of filing the return of income, is allowable as a deduction. This decision was based on precedents from the Supreme Court and the Jurisdictional High Court.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for delayed payment of Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC. The assessee had paid these contributions after the due dates but before the due date for filing the return of income.

What were the issues?

Whether delayed payment of Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC, made before the due date of filing the return of income, is an allowable deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 43B

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, MUMBAI BENCH “J”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI RAJENDRA & SHRI C.N. PRASAD

For Appellant: Shri Ravikanth Pathak, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Alok Johri, D.R
Hearing: 14.09.2016Pronounced: 30.11.2016

Per C.N. Prasad, Judicial Member:

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax-17, Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the CIT) dated 18.11.2014 for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. The only issue in the appeal of the Revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the disallowance on account of delayed payment of Employees’ Contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC even though they were made beyond the prescribed due dates.

2 M/s. Jord Engineers India Ltd.

3.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submits that the issue in appeal is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. [319 ITR 306]. He also submits that this issue is covered by even the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Hindustan Organic Chemicals Ltd. in IT Appeal No.399 of 2012 wherein it was held that Employees’ Contribution to Provident Fund paid before the due date for filing of return of income shall be allowed as deductable revenue expense. He also further submits that similar view has been taken in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patils Transport Ltd. in ITA No.1102 of 2012 and 1034 of 2012. 4. The Ld. D.R. places reliance on the order of the Assessing Officer.

5.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. This is a case where the assessee has remitted PF & ESI contributions belatedly but before the due date of filing of return of income and this issue is decided in favour of the assessee by the Jurisdictional High Court followed by which the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the disallowance. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).

6.

Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30.11.2016. आदेश क" घोषणा खुले "यायालय म" "दनांकः 30.11.2016 को क" गई । (राजे"" / Rajendra) (सी "साद / C.N. Prasad) सी. . . . एन एन. . "साद सी सी एन एन . . "साद "साद लेखा सद"य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "याियक सद"य / JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई/Mumbai; "दनांक/Dated 30.11.2016 * Kishore

3 M/s. Jord Engineers India Ltd.

to : िषत/Copy of the Order forwarded Copy of the Order forwarded Copy of the Order forwarded to Copy of the Order forwarded to to आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"े आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"े आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"े िषत िषत 1. अपीलाथ" / The Appellant

2.

""यथ" / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आयु"(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आयु" / CIT िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. 6. गाड" फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार स"यािपत !ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.

More judgments on Section 43B

All 7,161 judgments and leading authorities on Section 43B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →