2006 (4) TMI 85 - HC - Income Tax

Addition of the amount representing the employees contribution to the provident fund - CIT (Appeals) deleting an amount of Rs. 3,41,911 being the employees contribution towards provident fund, from the income of the assessee, deduction of which was disallowed by the assessing authority under section 43B(b) - Revenue in the appeal memo filed before the learned Appellate Tribunal has specifically taken the ground challenging the decision of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) in deleting the amount in question from the income of the assessee, therefore, the learned Tribunal has not exceeded its jurisdiction in dealing with the said question as to whether the said amount is to be treated as income in computing the income of the assessee under section 28 appeal dismissed

Issues Involved:

1. Applicability of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding addition of employees' contribution to the provident fund to the income of the assessee.
2. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in addressing issues not arising from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals).
3. Tribunal's power and jurisdiction in deciding issues not the subject-matter of the appeal before it.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961:

The primary issue revolves around whether Section 43B of the Act empowers the assessing authority to add the employees' contribution to the provident fund to the income of the assessee, even if it was not deposited during the relevant accounting year and was not claimed as a deduction in the profit and loss account. The court noted that Section 43B allows certain deductions only if the sum is actually paid by the due date for filing the return of income. In this case, the assessee had deducted the employees' contribution towards the provident fund but had not deposited it within the relevant year. Therefore, the court held that the amount must be treated as income of the assessee, as the deduction benefit under Section 43B is only available upon actual payment. The court rejected the contention that the amount cannot be treated as income since no deduction was claimed, emphasizing that the computation of income under Section 28 of the Act is not dependent on whether the assessee claimed any deduction.

2. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal:

The second issue concerns whether the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by addressing an issue not arising from the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and not being the subject matter of the appeal before the Tribunal. The court examined the grounds of appeal and found that the Revenue had specifically challenged the deletion of the amount by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The court concluded that the Tribunal did not exceed its jurisdiction, as it is empowered to pass orders on the subject-matter of the appeal, and the ground in question was indeed raised by the Revenue.

3. Tribunal's Power and Jurisdiction in Deciding Issues:

The third issue pertains to whether the Tribunal exceeded its power and jurisdiction by deciding on an issue not the subject-matter of the appeal before it. The court noted that Section 254 of the Act and Rule 11 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963, grant the Tribunal wide powers to pass orders and consider questions of law arising from the facts on record. The court referenced decisions from the apex court, which affirmed that the Tribunal's powers are extensive and can include issues necessary to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee. The court found that the Tribunal acted within its jurisdiction, as the Revenue had taken the ground in the memorandum of appeal, and thus, the Tribunal was justified in addressing it.

Conclusion:

The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's decision to treat the employees' contribution to the provident fund as income of the assessee under Section 28 of the Act. The court found no merit in the contention that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction, as the grounds were appropriately raised by the Revenue. The court did not make any order as to cost, considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

← Previous Next →