Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH ‘B’, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO
This appeal of the revenue is directed against the order dated 28- 05-2015 of the CIT(A)-2, Bangalore for Assessment year: 2012-13. The revenue has raised the following grounds;
“1. The order of the CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case and hence not sustainable.
2. The CIT(A) has erred in the decision with regard to the addition u/s 2(24)rws36(1)(va) which is not acceptable since the department has not accepted the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Esae Teraoka Pvt.Ltd (ITA No.480/2012) and has filed an SLP before the Apex Court which is still pending.
3. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the order of the CIT(A)a insofaras it relates to the above grounds may be reversed and that of the AO may be restored.
4. The assessee craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or delete the grounds mentioned above.
We have heard the learned DR as well as the representative/Director of the assessee company and considered the material on record.
At the outset, we note that the CIT(A) has decided the issue by following the decision of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Essae Teraoka Pvt.Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No.480/2012) in para-3.2 to 3.4 as under;
“ 3.2 In its written submissions filed at the time of appeal hearing, the assessee states that its stand is supported by judicial decisions in M/s Essae Teraoka Pvt.Ltd Vs DCIT (ITA No.480/2012) a copy of which has been furnished.
3.3 I have carefully considered the assessee’s sub missions and perused the assessment order. In the case law relied on by the assessee (supra), it has been held as under;
“……in law the payment of contribution by the employer to the fund under the scheme means both employers contribution and also employees contribution. Whether he deducts the employees contribution or not, in law, he is liable to pay the said amount. Though such contributions are not paid within the time prescribed under the relevant Act, if those contributions are paid before the due date prescribed under section 139(1) of the Act, the employers shall be entitled to the deductions as provided under section 36(1) of the Act. While extending such benefits, the Parliament has not made any distinction between the ‘employees’ contribution and the employer’s ‘contribution’. 3.4 I find merit in the assessee’s submissions since it is covered by the case law referred to above. Respectfully following the decision of the jurisdictional High Court referred to above, I delete the disallowances made in this regard by the AO for the assessment year 2012-13”.
No contrary decision has been brought to our notice by the revenue, except raising objection that the revenue has not accepted the judgment of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court. Accordingly, when the issue is covered by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, as relied upon by the learned AR, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue.
In the result, the appeal filed by the revenues is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on the 29th February, 2016.