ARMAAN INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD.,,SURAT vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, CIR. 1(1)(1), SURAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 286/SRT/2023Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 May 2023AY 2020-21Bench: SHRI PAWAN SINGH (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the timely payment of PF/ESI contributions by the assessee. If payments were made within the due dates as per the relevant statutes, relief should be granted.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return of income was processed by CPC, which disallowed employee and employer PF/ESI contributions. The assessee claimed these contributions were paid within the statutory due dates.

What were the issues?

Whether employee and employer PF/ESI contributions paid within statutory due dates are allowable as deductions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Assessee represented by Shri Suresh K. Kabra, CA Department represented by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Institution of Appeal 26/04/2023 Date of hearing 25/05/2023 Date of pronouncement 30/05/2023 Order under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER: PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 16/03/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming disallowance of Employee PF contribution u/s 36(1)(va) despite payment within due date as per due date of respective statute.

2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred and was not just and proper on the facts of the case and in law in confirming disallowance of employer’s share of PF/ESI contribution u/s 43B despite payment before due date of filing of return of income.

3. Prayer 3.1 The payment of Rs. 1,18,171/-being in time may be allowed as deduction u/s 36(1)(va). 3.2 The payment of Rs. 1,31,882/- being made before due date of filing the return of income, may be allowed as deduction u/s 43B. 3.3 Personal hearing may be granted.

Armaan Industries Pvt. Ltd. Vs Circle1(1)(1) 3.4 Any other relief that your honours may deem fir may be granted.

4. The assessee craves leave to add, amend, modify alter or delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing.”

2.

At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that he has a very limited prayer and submits that the Central Processing Centre (CPC) Bangalore, while processing the return of income, disallowed the entire contribution of employees and employer with regard to ESI and PF. The employer’s share was different amount but in Form 3CD by mistake, the amount of employees’ share was mentioned, however, both the items are allowable that made no difference. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that as per payment of ESI & PF for employer as well as employees’ share was made in the time for the month of March, 2020, thus the whole of the amount is allowable under Section 43B as well as 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (in short the Act).

3.

The CPC disallowed the reported amount of Rs. 1,81,171 + 13,711 i.e. total of Rs. 1,31,882/-, the payment is allowable and may be deleted. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that due date for filing for March, 2020 contribution of employer employee were 15th May, 2020 and the payment was made on 13/04/2020. The relevant challan has already been placed on record.

4.

On the other hand, the learned Senior Departmental Representative (ld. Sr. DR) for the revenue submits that the Assessing Officer may be directed to verify the contention of ld. AR of assessee and allow relief if such payments are made before due date prescribed in the relevant Acts.

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 →