9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is individual engaged in the business of manufacturing and processing of plastic packaging goods. E-return of income filed on 05.10.2018 declaring income of Rs. 13,74,370/-. The case of the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act by the Central Processing Centre vide order dated 21.05.2019 income was assessed at Rs. 17,30,310/- after making disallowance of Rs. 3,55,935/- for delay for payment of Provident Fund and ESIC for the contribution by employer and employee. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but partly succeeded. 4. Now the revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising following grounds: 1.On the fact and on the circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sum received from employees on account of PF/ESIC contribution and remaining amount of Rs. 2,01,472/- the employers contribution. On perusal of the records and details filed it remains uncontroverted fact with the total alleged sum has been deposited with the concerned authority before due date of filing of return of income. This disallowance was made for delay in depositing the said sum before the due date as prescribed by the authorities regulating PF/ESIC. Though the provisions of section 36(1)(va) refers to the sum received by the assessee from employees towards PF/ESIC but the CPC has made the disallowance for sum contributed by employer also which is not justified. Even otherwise total contribution by employer and employee totaling to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case vide judgement and order dated 26.5.2016 referred to (supra) and has held that the privilege fees being a revenue expenditure, is required to be allowed as a revenue expendit11re. This court in the aforesaid case has also allowed the claim of the assessee, in so far as payment of PF & ESI etc. is concerned, on the finding of fact that the amounts in question were deposited on or before the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgement of this Court in Commissioner o/Income Tax v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nig,lII!1 Ltd (2011) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.) : (2014) 265 CTR 471 and accordingly both the questions are covered by the aforesaid judgment a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
