9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (1) TMI 217 - AT - Income TaxDeduction u/s 10BA allowed Addition on account of delay in deposit of employee s contribution to PF - allowable deduction within the meaning of Section 36(1) read with Section 2(24)(x) - Held that - No disallowance can be made in respect of Employers P.F. Contribution and Employees P.F. Contribution in case such contributions are paid before due date of filing. It is not in dispute before us that the contributions have not been paid before due date of filing of the return. We therefore hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the Employers P.F. Contribution and Employees P.F. Contribution Addition on account of disallowance of bad debt u/s 36(1)(vii) - Held that - The issue before us stands covered by the decision of Honb le Apex Court in the of TRF Ltd. vs CIT 2010 (2) TMI 211 - SUPREME COURT . The Section itself mentions that the assessee can claim deduction on account of writing off any bad debt or part thereof. Hence it was not necessary for the assessee to have written off the entire debt. The business decision is to be taken by the assessee and the onus was on the Revenue to have established that writing off of part of the debt was not true. The onus was on the Revenue to have collected the material to suggest that writing off of bad debt was for the purpose of evading the tax. We therefore feel that the ld CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition.
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction under Section 10BA of the Income Tax Act. 2. Allowability of deduction for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to Provident Fund (PF) under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act. 3. Disallowance of bad debt under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Deduction under Section 10BA of the Income Tax Act: The revenue's first grievance was that the CIT(A) erred in directing to allow a deduction of Rs. 30,82,768/- under Section 10BA. The CIT(A) observed that similar statements had been recorded in the past and the matter had been decided in favor of the assessee by the ITAT for the assessment years 2004-05 and 2006-07. The ITAT found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order, which followed the Tribunal's earlier findings. Therefore, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction under Section 10BA, dismissing the revenue's first ground of appeal. 2. Allowability of deduction for delayed deposit of employee's contribution to PF: The revenue's second grievance was the deletion of an addition of Rs. 58,106/- made by the AO due to a delay in depositing the employee's contribution to PF. The revenue argued that such contributions should be allowed as deductions only if credited to the employee's account by the due date under the relevant fund, independent of the due date for filing income tax returns under Section 43B. The revenue cited various judicial precedents, including decisions from the Karnataka and Delhi High Courts, and an ITAT Mumbai Bench decision, arguing that Section 43B does not apply to employee contributions. The ITAT, however, referred to the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Alom Extrusion Ltd. and other relevant cases, which clarified that the amendment by the Finance Act, 2003, equated the due date for contributions to welfare funds with the due date for filing returns under Section 139(1). The ITAT noted that the contributions were paid before the due date for filing returns and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the deduction, dismissing the revenue's second ground of appeal. 3. Disallowance of bad debt under Section 36(1)(vii): The revenue's third grievance was the deletion of an addition of Rs. 55,51,721/- made by the AO due to disallowance of bad debt. The AO contended that the assessee had not closed the account of the debtor parties, which was necessary for claiming bad debt. The CIT(A) observed that the assessee had written off part of the debts in its books and that Section 36(1)(vii) does not require the cessation of business transactions with the debtor parties. The ITAT referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in TRF Ltd. vs. CIT, which clarified that the assessee can claim deduction for any bad debt or part thereof written off. The ITAT noted that the onus was on the revenue to prove that the partial write-off was not genuine and aimed at evading tax. As the revenue failed to provide such evidence, the ITAT upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the disallowance, dismissing the revenue's third ground of appeal. Conclusion: The ITAT dismissed the revenue's appeal on all three grounds, upholding the CIT(A)'s decisions regarding the deduction under Section 10BA, the allowability of delayed PF contributions, and the disallowance of bad debt. The order was pronounced in the open court on 25-01-2012.
|
