9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (12) TMI 267 - HC - Income TaxAddition u/s 36(1)(v)(a) read with section 2(24)(x) - disallowances being employees contribution to PF Account / ESI Account - HELD THAT - A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal reveals that the Tribunal has merely applied the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT it is held that the learned tribunal has erred in deleting respective disallowances being employees contribution to PF Account / ESI Account made by the AO as, as such, such sums were not credited by the respective assessee to the employees accounts in the relevant fund or funds (in the present case Provident Fund and/or ESI Fund on or before the due date as per the explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Act i.e. date by which the concerned assessee was required as an employer to credit employees contribution to the employees account in the Provident Fund under the Provident Fund Act and/or in the ESI Fund under the ESI Act. No question of law
Issues:
Interpretation of provisions of section 36(1)(v)(a) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for confirming addition/disallowance of ?1,77,66,589 made by the Assessing Officer. Analysis: The appellant challenged the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITA) in ITA No.1300/AHD/2017 under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The substantial question of law proposed was whether the Tribunal erred in law in interpreting the provisions of section 36(1)(v)(a) read with section 2(24)(x) of the Act regarding the addition/disallowance made by the Assessing Officer amounting to ?1,77,66,589. The assessment year in question was 2014-2015 with the corresponding accounting period being the previous year 2013-2014. The appellant's advocate reiterated the grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal during the hearing. The Tribunal's order revealed that it relied on a decision of the High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, wherein it was held that the assessee shall be entitled to deduction in computing income with respect to sums credited to employees' accounts in relevant funds on or before the due date mentioned in explanation to section 36(1)(va). The Tribunal found that the respective disallowances made by the Assessing Officer were justified as the sums were not credited to the employees' accounts in the Provident Fund and/or ESI Fund on or before the due date as required by law. Since the Tribunal applied the decision of the jurisdictional High Court to the facts of the case, it was concluded that no question of law arose from the impugned order. Consequently, the appeal was deemed to fail, and it was summarily dismissed by the Honorable Ms. Justice Harsha Devani.
|
