9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 863X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e effective retrospectively, i.e., with effect from 1.4.1988 i.e., the date of insertion of first proviso. The Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V. Amil Ltd. [ 2009 (12) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that if the assessee had deposited employee's contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI after due date as prescribed under the relevant Act, but before the due date of filing of return under the Income Tax Act, no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of Section 43B as amended by Finance Act, 2003. In the present case, the assessee had remitted the employees contribution beyond the due date for payment, but within the due date for filing the return of income. Hence, following the above-said decisions, we find no rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ibunal and the ld. DR dutifully supported the order passed by the Assessing Officer. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee strongly supported the order of the ld. CIT(A) in support of the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court as followed by the ld. CIT(A). 5. We have heard both the sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. In the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has deemed an amount of ₹.2,97,81,537/-, being belated remittance of the employee s contribution to PF and ESI as the income of the assessee in view of the provisions of section 2(24)(x) of the Act read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has submitte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT V. Alom Extrusions Ltd. reported in 319 ITR 306, decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT V. Amil Ltd. reported in 321 ITR 508 and that of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s.Venkateswara Electrical Industries P. Ltd. V. DCIT in ITA Nos.1344, 1345 and 1636/Mds/2014 dated 28.8.2014 held as follows: 5. Heard both sides. Perused orders of lower authorities and the decisions relied on before us. It is not in dispute that all these payments of provident fund ₹ 16,20,571/- and ESI ₹ 17,51,490/- were made beyond the grace period/due date allowed under Provident Fund ESI Acts but b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iling of return. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Cit Vs. Amil Ltd., reported as 321 ITR 508 has held that if the assessee had deposited employees contribution towards Provident Fund and ESI after due date as prescribed under the relevant Act but before the due date of filing of return under the Income Tax Act, no disallowance could be made in view of the provisions of section 43B as amended by the Finance Act, 2003. The decision of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has been followed by the co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of JCIT Vs. M/s. S.M.Apparels (P) Ltd. (supra). The Tribunal has been consistently following the view taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. Accordingly, we hold that the assessee is en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... contribution beyond the due date for payment, but within the due date for filing the return of income. Hence, following the above-said decisions, we find no reason to differ with the findings of the Tribunal. Accordingly, we find no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in these appeals. Accordingly, both the Tax Case (Appeals) stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2015 is also dismissed. 6. Respectfully following the above decision of the Hon ble High Court, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee. The ld. DR could not controvert the above decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court. Thus, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the ld. CIT( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
