9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 955 - AT - Income TaxAddition towards late payment of PF, ESI and welfare fund - HELD THAT - We find that as on today the issue is covered against the assessee by the decision of Hon ble High Court in CIT Vs GSRTC ( 2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT . Therefore, the assessee has no merit in its case. We further find that Hon'ble Jurisdiction High Court in subsequent decision in Salasar Laminates Ltd. 2018 (10) TMI 1632 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT though dismiss that appeal. However it was directed that if the decision of GSRTC VS DCIT (supra) is reversed by Hon'ble Apex Court, the assessee is given opportunity to revive his appeal by filing application for seeking similar relief. Considering the fact that the issue is squarely covered against the assessee as noted above. However, instead of keeping the matter alive, the case was restore to Ld. CIT(A) to give effect to the order of the Tribunal in accordance with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation 2016 (3) TMI 1438 - SC ORDER . Additional grounds of appeal - disallowance of professional tax deducted from the salaries of the employee - As we find that the assessee has raised additional ground of appeal for the first time before the Tribunal, facts related with the disallowances are emanates from the record of the lower authorities being part of computation of total income, therefore, we admit this ground of appeal and restore the same to the files of ld CIT(A) to decide it on merit. The ld CIT(A) will be at liberty to seek the remand report if so desired and pass the order in accordance with law. In the result, all the grounds appeal raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
Issues Involved:
Appeals against orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for AY 2018-19 and 2019-20; Disallowance of late payment of PF, ESI, and welfare fund; Retrospective operation of finance act provisions; Consideration of latest judicial decisions; Additional ground of appeal regarding professional tax deduction; Application of Section 36(1)(va) to welfare fund deduction. Analysis: 1. Disallowance of Late Payments: The appeals by the assessee(s) challenged the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) regarding the disallowance made by the Assessing Officer for late payment of PF, ESI, and welfare fund contributions. The issue centered around the timing of these payments in relation to the due date for filing returns. The Commissioner upheld the disallowance, citing retrospective operation of finance act provisions. However, the assessee argued against this decision, pointing to specific judicial precedents and amendments under the Finance Act, 2021. The Tribunal considered these arguments but ultimately found the issue to be covered against the assessee by previous court decisions. 2. Additional Ground of Appeal - Professional Tax Deduction: A significant aspect of the case involved an additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee regarding the deduction of professional tax from employee salaries. The Tribunal admitted this ground of appeal, noting that the facts related to this disallowance were already part of the record and required consideration on merit. The Tribunal directed the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide on this matter in accordance with the law, allowing the ground of appeal raised by the assessee. 3. Application of Section 36(1)(va) to Welfare Fund Deduction: The case also addressed the application of Section 36(1)(va) to the deduction of professional tax not related to the welfare fund. The assessee contended that this deduction should not be disallowed under Section 36(1)(va) as it did not pertain to the welfare fund. The Tribunal acknowledged this argument and restored the matter to the files of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for a decision on merit, emphasizing the need to consider the specifics of this deduction in light of the legal provisions. 4. Consistency and Judicial Precedents: Throughout the judgment, the Tribunal emphasized the importance of consistency in decisions and the impact of relevant judicial precedents on the case at hand. The Tribunal referred to previous judgments and directions given in similar cases to guide the decision-making process. By considering the legal framework, court decisions, and specific facts of the case, the Tribunal aimed to ensure a fair and consistent approach to resolving the issues raised by the assessee(s). 5. Conclusion: In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals of the assessee(s) for statistical purposes, highlighting the need for further consideration of certain grounds of appeal, including the professional tax deduction issue. The Tribunal's decision underscored the importance of legal interpretations, judicial precedents, and adherence to due process in resolving tax-related disputes. The judgment aimed to provide clarity on the contested issues and ensure a fair and reasoned outcome based on the applicable legal provisions and court decisions.
|
