CARVER TECHNOLOGY & EQUIPMENTS P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT RG 3(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1229/MUM/2014Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 November 2015AY 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 held that since the payments were made before filing the return, the disallowance was incorrect. The Tribunal followed the jurisdictional High Court's decision in CIT vs Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction for employees' contribution to provident fund and ESIC due to late payment. The CIT(A) affirmed this disallowance. The assessee argued that payments were made before filing the return.

What were the issues?

Whether late payment of employees' contribution to provident fund and ESIC, made before filing the return, is disallowable under the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(2)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 BENCHES “C”, MUMBAI

Before: Shri Joginder Singh, & Shri Ashwani Taneja

For Appellant: Shri Amey Wagle, Shri Arvind Kumar-DR
Hearing: 18/11/2015

Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 12/12/2013 of the Ld. first Appellate Authority, Mumbai. the only ground raised in this appeal pertains to confirming the disallowance of payment of employees contribution to

1.

2 M/s Carver Technology & Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Rs.38,141/- and disallowance in respect of let payment of employees contribution to the employees state insurance corporation (ESIC) amounting to Rs.47,539/-.

2.

During hearing, at the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee, contended that the impugned issue is covered by the decision from the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (2014) 48 taxman.com 421 (Bom.). This factual matrix was consented to be correct by the ld. DR. 2.1. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. On perusal of tax audit report, it was noted by the Assessing Officer that the payments of employees contribution, ESIC were made let i.e. after the due date, therefore, the Assessing Officer declined the claimed benefit. The ld. Assessing Officer did not allow the claimed deduction, therefore, made disallowance u/s 43B r.w.s 36(1)(va) of the Act. On appeal, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) affirmed the stand of the Assessing Officer. The only issue to be adjudicated by us whether the payments were paid before filing the return. This fact was not disputed by the Department that the payments were made/paid before filing the return. We are of the view that payment of contribution towards PF is a beneficial provision and since the payments were uncontrovertedly paid/made before filing of return, therefore, respectfully following the decision from Hon’ble

3 M/s Carver Technology & Equipment Pvt. Ltd. High Court in the case of Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd. (supra), we find force in the contention of the assessee. It is also noted that while coming to the conclusion, the Hon’ble High Court followed the decision in CIT vs Alom Exclusion Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC). Respectfully, following the aforesaid decisions, we allow the appeal of the assessee.

Finally, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

This Order was pronounced in the open court in the presence of ld. representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 18/11/2015.

More judgments on Section 43B

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →