9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 127X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ER: R.C. Sharma, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of ld. CIT(A)-1, Jodhpur dated 11.12.2019 for the A.Y. 2007-08, in the matter of order passed by the A.O. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act). 2.1 The only dispute of the Revenue relates to deletion of addition made on account of delay in deposit of employees contributions towards CPF, GPF and ESI u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 2.2 Rival Contentions have been heard and records perused. The facts of the case in brief are that the assessee is a State Government Undertaking and engaged in the distribution and sale of electricity. The assessee filed the Return of Income for A.Y. 2007-08 on 29.10.2007 claiming unabsorbed depreciation/curren ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... so. It was further held that where Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance Contribution were paid by the assessee before filing of the return and proof of payment was submitted before the Assessing Officer, the amounts were deductible as deduction. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Aimil Ltd Ors. reported in 321 ITR 508 held as under:- As soon as employees' contribution towards PF or ESI is received by the assessee by way of deduction or otherwise from the salary/ wages of the employees, it will be treated as 'income' at the hands of the assessee. It clearly follows there from that if the assessee does not deposit this contribution with PF/ESI authorit ies, it will be tax as income at the hands of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RO) (ii) ACIT vs. Ranabaxy Laboratories Ltd. (2011) 7 ITR (Trib) 161 (DLH) (iii) ACIT vs. M/s. Anil Special Steel Industries Ltd. (decision of Jaipur Bench in ITA No. 1100/JP/2011) Further, I have also gone through the order of the Hon'ble ITAT, Jodhpur Bench passed in the appellant's own case in ITA no. 132/JP/2009 for AY 2006-07 and I find that the issue is squarely covered by the Hon'ble ITAT's findings recorded for AY 2006-07 where similar disallowance was made. For the sake of clarity, the relevant findings of the Hon'ble ITAT are reproduced as under:- After hearing the parties we find that there is no dispute in the present case that the employees contribution to PF and ESI was paid before the due dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of employee's contribution towards CPF/GPF/ESI u/s 36(1)(va). In this regard, the AO noted that there was delay in depositing of employee's contribution to CPF (₹ 42986497/-), GPF (₹ 15425088/-) ESI (₹ 102913). On being asked vide show cause notice, the assessee has submitted that the principles and provisions of section 36(1)(va) and Section 43B of the Act are based on harmonious interpretation and similarity of objectives and consequent to omission of second proviso to section 43B and insertion of the new proviso regarding allowance of any sum paid by him as an employer subject to payment before the due date of furnishing of the return should apply to section 36(1)(va) simultaneously. The reply of the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... LP (C ) No. 016249/2014 against the aforesaid judgement before the Supreme Court. Learned Counsel submit that although this Court has answered the question with respect to interpretation to Section 43-B of the Income Tax Act against the Revenue but correctness of that judgement is to be tested by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid pending SLP. Therefore these appeals may be disposed of making them subject to that final judgement of the Supreme Court on the aforesaid question in pending SLP. In view of above, all the aforesaid appeals are disposed of accordingly. 2.7 Respectfully following the order of the Coordinate Bench, Jaipur in assessee s own case which has been confirmed by the Hon ble High Court (supra), we do not find any re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
