9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (1) TMI 1598 - AT - Income TaxAddition on account of late deposit of PF, ESIC and professional tax - Held that -It is a clear finding by the CIT(A) that the assessee paid the Employees contribution to Provident Fund, ESIC and Professional Tax before the due date of furnishing the return u/s. 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, there is no need to interfere with the order of the CIT(A)in deleting addition . The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed . See CIT vs. M/s. Vinay Cement Ltd. 2007 (3) TMI 346 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA and CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. (2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT) - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Late deposit of PF, ESIC, and professional tax resulting in an addition of ?7,91,59,691 by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) deleted the addition based on compliance with due dates under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Disagreement between the Revenue and the CIT(A) regarding the applicability of legal judgments in similar cases. Analysis: The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the order passed by CIT(A)-7, New Delhi for A.Y. 2013-14, challenging the deletion of an addition of ?7,91,59,691 made by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer added this amount due to late deposits of PF, ESIC, and professional tax by the assessee company. The CIT(A) based the deletion of the addition on the timely payment of Employees' contribution to provident fund, ESIC, and professional tax before the due date of furnishing the return under section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The CIT(A) referred to legal precedents, specifically the judgments in the cases of CIT vs. M/s. Vinay Cement Ltd. and CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd., to support the decision to delete the addition. These judgments highlighted the importance of timely payments and compliance with due dates. The CIT(A) emphasized that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making the disallowance based on the facts presented and the legal interpretations provided by the aforementioned judgments. During the proceedings, the Revenue argued that the case did not align with the judgment in the CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. case. However, the Revenue failed to provide a sufficient distinction between the facts of the present case and the case cited. On the other hand, the assessee's representative contended that the case fell within the scope of the CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. judgment, as the payments were made before filing the return, as confirmed by the CIT(A)'s findings. Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal found that the CIT(A) correctly applied the legal principles established in the judgments cited. The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer did not adequately differentiate between the facts of the present case and those outlined in the legal precedents. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s conclusion that the assessee had indeed paid the relevant contributions before the due date, as required by law. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the CIT(A)'s decision based on the timely payment of contributions and compliance with due dates as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
|
