Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Per Pramod Kumar AM:
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad dated 20.10.2015 passed for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Grievance raised by the appellant is as follows:-
The learned CIT(A) has erred law and on facts in confirming an addition of Rs.2,75,355/| being payment of Employees contribution towards P.P. & of Rs.45,503/- being employees contribution towards ESIC on the ground that the same have been paid late. It is submitted that the learned CIT(A) has erred in incorrectly invoking provisions of Sec. 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) and has wrongly interpreted provisions of Sec. 43B of the I.T. Act. It is submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in including the disallowance of Employee's Contribution towards ESIC of Rs. 7836/- & Rs.8059/- for the month of Oct. 2011 & Nov. 2011, as the same has been paid even before the due date prescribed under the relevant Act, which is also not disputed by the A.O. In any event the Employee's Contribution towards P.P. and ESIC have been deposited after the due date prescribed under the relevant Act, but before the
ITA No. 3566/Ahd/2015 C Mohanlal Pvt Ltd vs. ITO Assessment Year : 2012-13 Page 2 of 2
due date of filing of return of income and thus the same has been allowed u/s 43B of the Act. Therefore it is submitted that the addition of Rs.2,75,355/- & Rs.45,503/- made towards Employees contribution to P.P.& ESIC respectively be deleted.
To adjudicate on this appeal, only a few facts need to be taken note of. During the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that there are, inter alia, delayed payments of Employee’s ESI contributions, aggregating to Rs.45,503/-, which should be added to assessee’s income under Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. It was pointed out by the assessee that, out of the above, ESI contribution of Rs.8,059/- and Rs.7,836/- are in fact timely payments within permissible time frame under the statute. The Assessing Officer noted, but brushed aside, the said contention and proceeded to disallow entire amount of Rs.45,503/-. Aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A) but without any success. The assessee is now in second appeal before us.
Having heard the rival contentions, and having perused the material on record, we see merits in limited plea of the assessee that these amounts of Rs.8,059/- and Rs.7,836/- were paid within prescribed time, and, to that extent, the disallowance deserves to be deleted. We direct so. No other grievance was pressed before us.
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed in the terms indicated above. Pronounced in the open Court on today on the 19th day of September, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
S S Godara Pramod Kumar (Judicial Member) (Accountant Member) Ahmedabad, the day of September, 2017 *bt
Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order TRUE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ahmedabad benches, Ahmedabad