9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (1) TMI 1875 - AT - Income TaxPayment of EPF and Administrative Expenses - disallowance u/s 43B - HELD THAT - We find that Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of CIT Vs. Rai Agro Industries Ltd. 2010 (11) TMI 386 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT has held Tribunal was right in allowing the claim of the assessee in respect of payments made for ESI contributions and it could not be disallowed u/s 43B of the Act. Following the decision of Hon ble Punjab and Haryana High Court that if the payment has been made within the due date of filing of return in respect of Provident Fund dues etc. then same has to be allowed. Respectfully following this decision we decide this issue in favour of the assessee.
Issues:
Appeal against order of Ld CIT(A)-II, Ludhiana regarding disallowance of EPF and Administrative Expenses payment. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the order of Ld CIT(A)-II, Ludhiana dated 22.7.2009. The Tribunal recalled the order in ITA No. 915/Chd/2009 dated 30.10.2009 specifically concerning the disallowance of a sum related to EPF and Administrative Expenses. The Assessing officer observed that payments towards Provident Fund were made late, which led to their disallowance. The Ld. CIT(A)-II upheld the Assessing officer's action. During the proceedings, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee cited a decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in support of the assessee's case. On the contrary, the Ld. D.R. for the Revenue supported the Assessing officer's order. The Tribunal considered the submissions and referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Rai Agro Industries Ltd. The High Court held that if payments for ESI contributions were made within the due date of filing the return, they could not be disallowed under section 43B of the Income-tax Act. Relying on this decision, the Tribunal decided in favor of the assessee, allowing the claim for Provident Fund dues. Consequently, Ground No. 1 of the assessee's appeal was allowed. The order was pronounced in the open court on 20.1.2014.
|
