GANGARAM BHAVANIGULAM VARMA,VAPI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, VAPI WARD-1, VAPI, VAPI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 164/SRT/2022Status: HeardITAT Surat07 December 2022AY 2018-195 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the employee's contribution to Provident Fund must be deposited by the due date for claiming deduction. Non-compliance with this condition leads to disallowance.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the disallowance of Rs. 3,34,321/- for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to Provident Fund. The Assessing Officer made the addition, and the CIT(A) upheld it.

What were the issues?

Whether delayed deposit of employee's contribution to Provident Fund beyond the statutory due date is eligible for deduction under the Income Tax Act.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

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

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.

Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act Per PAWAN SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER; 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC” for short) /Ld.CIT(A)] dated 31.03.2022 for assessment year (AY) 2018-19, which in turn arises out an assessment order passed by National e- Assessment Centre, Delhi under section 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) & 143(3B) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) vide order dated 06.02.2021. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1.On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) NFAC has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.3,34,321/- made by (A.Y 18-19) Sh.Gangaram B Varma the learned Assessing Officer on the basis that Employees contribution towards Provident Fund has been deposited late. The action of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) NFAC is not in accordance with the facts of the case and law and deserves to be deleted. 2.On appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case and law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) NFAC has erred in not considering the judicial decision as relied upon by the Appellant. The action of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) NFAC is not in accordance with the facts of the case and law and deserves to be deleted.

1.

3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify or alter the above grounds of appeal at any stage of appellate proceedings.”

2.

Brief facts of the case that Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order noted that assessee has received employee’s contribution on account of Provident Fund of Rs.13,23,310/- out of which Rs.7,00,965/- was not deposited in the respective fund within due date prescribed in the relevant statutory provision. The Assessing Officer issued show cause notice to the assessee for granting opportunity to submit assessee’s response. The assessee furnished his reply in ITBA portal, wherein the assessee stated that out of total proposed addition of Rs.7,00,695/-, only Rs.3,34,321/- pertaining to employee’s contribution towards Provident Fund was not deposited within due (A.Y 18-19) Sh.Gangaram B Varma course of time and assessee furnished copy of relevant challan along with his reply. The assessee in his without prejudiced stated that addition/ disallwances, if any, may be restricted to some of Rs.3,34,321/-. The Assessing Officer accordingly disallowed Rs.3,34,321/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act.

3.

Aggrieved by the addition / disallowance the case of assessee travelled before Ld.NFAC/CIT(A) who upheld the addition made by Assessing Officer following the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax II vs/ Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 41 taxmann.com 100/366 ITR 170/223. Further aggrieved the assessee has filed present appeal before Tribunal. 4. None, appeared on behalf of assessee despite service of notice of hearing through Registered Postal Acknowledgement Due (RPAD) and acknowledgement / AD card received after the service of such notice which is available on record. Today (07.12.2022) as none appeared on behalf of assessee nor filed any adjournment application. None appeared on behalf of assessee on two occasions.

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 →