2017 (11) TMI 1422 - HC - Income Tax

Disallowance of deduction towards belated deposit of employees contribution of Provident Fund/Employees State Insurance - Held that - The first appellate authority confirmed the order of dis-allowance following the order passed by the Tribunal in SFO Technologies P. Ltd. 2015 (1) TMI 1241 - ITAT BANGALORE wherein the Tribunal held that if there any sum received by the assessee from any of its employees as contribution to PF and/or ESI was not credited by the assessee to employees accounts in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date as per Explanation to sec. 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act, the assessee shall not be entitled to deduction thereof. Accordingly, the order of the CIT(A) is reversed on this issue and that of the Assessing officer is restored. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Legal deduction of employees' contribution to ESI & PF deposited after the statutory period but before filing of returns u/s 139(1) of the IT Act.
Justification of the appellate Tribunal's reliance on previous court decisions.
Reconsideration of a previous court decision in light of a different apex court decision.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal concerning the Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10. The main issue revolved around the dis-allowance of deduction for belated deposit of employees' contribution to Provident Fund/Employees State Insurance. The Tribunal upheld the dis-allowance, citing precedents from previous court judgments, including CIT v. South India Corporation and CIT v. Merchem Ltd. The Tribunal's decision was based on the settled law established by these precedents.

The questions of law framed in the appeal primarily focused on whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal against the impugned orders related to the deduction of employees' contribution to ESI & PF deposited after the statutory period but before filing of returns u/s 139(1) of the IT Act. Additionally, the Tribunal's reliance on the decision in CIT v. Merchem Ltd. was questioned, especially in comparison to the decision in CIT v. Vinay Cements Ltd. The need for reconsideration of the decision in CIT v. Merchem Ltd. in light of the apex court's decision in CIT v. Vinay Cements Ltd. was also raised.

Ultimately, the High Court concluded that since the law on the matter was settled, the appeals did not raise any new question of law for consideration. Therefore, the appeals were deemed to fail and were dismissed accordingly. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to established legal principles and precedents in determining the outcome of such cases.