9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (5) TMI 993X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TA No.95/Hyd/2020 - - - Dated:- 19-5-2021 - Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J. Appellant by: Sri Tarak Nath Respondent by: Sri Rajat Mishra, DR ORDER Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J. This is assessee s appeal for the A.Y 2018-19 against the order of the CIT (A)-7, Hyderabad, dated 19.11.2019. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual and proprietor of M/s. Veratroniks, filed her return of income for the A.Y 2018-19 on 17.09.2018 declaring gross total income of ₹ 19,41,388/-. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, the CPC Bangalore made an addition of ₹ 1,65,708/- by disallowing the amount received from the employees as contribution to the PF/Superannuation Fund/fund set up under E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gnisance of the legal position that in view of differing decisions of various High Courts and there being no decision of the jurisdictional High Court, since two possible views of the matter are there, the one which is in favour of the assessee deserves to be adopted in the light of the Hon'ble Apex Court judgement in the case of CIT vs. Vegetable Products Ltd. [88 ITR 192] (Se). 4. For these grounds and for such other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing of the appeal, the issues raised in this appeal may be considered . 3. The learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below while the learned DR supported the orders of the authorities below. 4. Having regard to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see having not remitted the contribution to the respective accounts before the due dates specified under the Act, the same are not allowable deductions u/s.43B of the Act. Hence, the assessee preferred appeal before the Tribunal, against the order of Ld.CIT(A). 3.3. During the appeal hearing, Ld.AR argued that the assessee has remitted the contributions to the respective accounts before the due date of filing the return, therefore requested to set aside the order of the lower authorities and delete the addition made by the AO. 3.4. On the other hand, the Ld.DR submitted that the EPF is in respect of employees contribution, both the PF and ESI are required to be allowed as deductions, if the same are remitted to the respective acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 36(1)(va) but such dues having been paid before the due date of filing of return of the income as prescribed under section 139(1), the amount is allowable as a deduction as per the provisions of section 43B. We find merit in the aforesaid submissions of the assessee. There are a number of judicial precedents on this issue wherein it is held that if the employees contribution to PF and ESI is paid within the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1), then, the amount is allowable as a deduction in view of the provision of section 43B. In view of the afore said, we delete the addition of ₹ 2,07,209 . 3.5.1. Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab Haryana High Court in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. Rajastan Beverages Corpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in (2017) [85 taxmann.com 185].Therefore, taking the consistent view and respectfully following the view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of the ITAT in the case of KLR Industries Ltd., Vs. DCIT (supra), we hold that no disallowance could be made in respect of employees contribution of PF and ESI if the same are deposited before the due date of filing the return of income. Accordingly, we set aside the order of Ld.CIT(A) and delete the addition made by the AO. The appeal of the assessee on this ground is allowed . 5. Respectfully following the same, I set aside the order of the CIT (A) and delete the addition made by the Assessing Officer on this ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
