9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 1221 - AT - Income TaxRevision u/s 263 by CIT - Disallowance of deduction u/s 43B on delayed employees contribution to provident fund - HELD THAT - Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. 2014 (10) TMI 402 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT wherein it has been held that deduction for payment of employees‟ contribution cannot be disallowed in case the contribution of employees‟ share in the welfare funds got credited on or before the due date. In this case before us, admittedly, the amount in question was deposited before the due date u/s 139 clause (1) of the Act. D.R also could not refute the fact that the A.O had examined all these aspects and therefore, in our considered view the assessment order is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial pronouncement, we quash the revisionary order passed u/s 263 of the Act by the ld. Pr. CIT and allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee.
Issues:
1. Revision order passed u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act deemed illegal, ab-initio, and unsustainable. 2. Allowability of employee's contribution to provident fund. 3. Applicability of section 36(1)(vi)(a) and section 43B to the deduction of employee's contribution to provident fund. Issue 1: Revision Order under Section 263: The appeal challenged the revision order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 of the Income-tax Act for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The appellant contended that the revision order was illegal, ab-initio, and unsustainable in law. The appellant argued that the Assessing Officer had adopted a plausible view on the issue of the deduction of employee's contribution to provident fund, which was supported by various judgments. The Tribunal held that the revisionary order was unwarranted as the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to the interest of revenue, thereby allowing the appeal. Issue 2: Allowability of Employee's Contribution to Provident Fund: The dispute centered around the allowability of the employee's contribution to provident fund amounting to Rs. 19,84,130. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax contended that the assessment order allowing this deduction was erroneous and prejudicial to revenue. However, the appellant argued that the contribution was paid before the due date of filing the return of income, as evidenced by the Tax Audit Report. Citing relevant judgments, including those of the Bombay High Court and Pune Tribunal, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the amount was deposited before the due date under section 139(1) of the Act. Issue 3: Applicability of Sections 36(1)(vi)(a) and 43B: The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax asserted that the claim of deduction for employee's contribution to provident fund fell under section 36(1)(vi)(a) and should be disallowed, arguing that section 43B did not apply. The appellant disagreed, citing binding judgments that supported the deduction under section 43B if the contribution was paid before the due date of filing the return of income. The Tribunal, in line with previous judicial pronouncements, held that the assessment order was not erroneous or prejudicial to revenue, as the amount in question was deposited before the due date under section 139(1) of the Act. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashing the revisionary order and upholding the appellant's contentions regarding the deduction of employee's contribution to provident fund. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of timely payment and the applicability of relevant legal provisions in determining the allowability of deductions.
|
