GANNON DUNKERLEY & CO.LTD,MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT CEN CIR 35, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 7178/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 September 2016AY 2010-113 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the AO to allow the claim if the EPF contribution was deposited before the due date of filing the return, following the precedent set by the Delhi High Court in CIT vs. P.M. Electronics Ltd.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed a deduction for Employee Provident Fund (EPF) contribution amounting to Rs. 10,10,837/-. The Assessing Officer (AO) disallowed this claim, stating it was made after the due date for filing a revised return. The CIT(A) upheld the AO's decision.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of EPF contribution is justified when the payment was made before the due date of filing the return, even if claimed late. The applicability of Section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B in such scenarios.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 43B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G”, BENCH MUMBAI

For Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna (DR)
Hearing: 27/07/2016Pronounced: 07/09/2016

O R D E R

PER PAWAN SINGH, JM:

1.

The present appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-1, Mumbai dated 02.09.2016 for Assessment Year (AY) 2010-11.

2.

Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for relevant AY on 15.10.2010. The return of income was selected for scrutiny. While framing the assessment, the AO besides the addition/disallowance made a disallowance of Rs. 10,10,837/- on account of delay in deposit of Employee Provident Fund Contribution in the assessment order dated 01.03.13. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee field appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. Thus, the present appeal is filed before us raising the following Grounds of appeal.

The Learned CIT(A) erred in law, in fact and under the circumstances of case:- i) By not allowing claim of deduction of Rs. 10,10,837/- in respect of contribution to provident fund which were collected and paid before due date of filing return of income. ii) Appellant submit that claim made by appellant during the course of assessment stage is to be allowed. Appellant prays that i) Deduction of payment of Rs. 10,10,837/- made to PF Authorities before due date of filing Return of Income for Employees Contribution to Provident should be allowed u/s 43B of Income Tax Act and claim made by appellant during the assessment stage be allowed to appellant.

3.

None appeared on behalf of assessee despite repeated calls. We have heard the Ld. DR for Revenue and perused the material available on record. Ld. DR for Revenue supported the order of authorities below and argued that the assessee made the claim after filing return of income and after expiry of time allowed for filing revised return of income and the claim of assessee was not acceptable. On specific queries, if the contribution of PF was deposited by the assessee, before due date of filing of return of income. Ld. DR for Revenue replied that there is no such evidence available on record.

4.

We have perused the material available on record and considered the argument advanced by the Ld. DR for Revenue. The AO made the disallowance holding that the assessee made claim after filing of return of income and after expiry of time allowed for filing of revised return of income. The Ld. CIT(A) also concluded that assessee has not filed revised return claiming deduction u/s 36(1)(va). The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. P.M. Electronics Ltd. in dated 03.11.2008 held that if the contribution of Provident Fund is paid by assessee before due date of filing of return, the assessee would be entitled for the deduction of said amount. As none appeared on behalf of assessee nor any document showing that the contribution of PF allowable u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act is placed on record, we direct the AO to allow the claim of contribution of EPF of Rs. 10,10,837/- in accordance with the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in P.M. Electronics Ltd.(supra), if the amount of Provident Fund Contribution was deposited by assessee before filing the return of income. With these observations, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

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 →