9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 492X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 21,96,923/- on account of delay in deposit of employees contribution to Provident Fund and ESIC u/s 2(24)(x) r.w.s 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even when the same were paid before the due date of filling the return of income. 2. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete any of the above referred ground of appeal. 3. At the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. 4. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the assessee was engaged in the business of Staffing and Manpower supply, who filed its original return of income on 31.10.2019, declaring a total income of ₹ 25,65,467/- under normal provisions and ₹ 21,97,669/- under MAT provision i.e. u/s 115JB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( the Act ). The return was processed and the ADIT, CPC, Bangalore issued an intimation u/s 143(1) of the Act for the year under consideration, assessed the income of ₹ 47,62,390/- under normal provisions after making a disallowance of ₹ 21,96,923/- u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act on account of delayed payment of employee s contribution to ESIC. 5. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the Assessing Officer erred in making an adjustment of ₹ 21,96,923/- (u/s 143(1)(a) read with section 36(1)(va) of the Act), being ₹ 21,96,923/- received towards fund set-up under the provisions of the ESI Act, 1948 which remained to be deposited on or before the prescribed due date of the relevant law. The appellant contended that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer ought not to have made the impugned adjustment in as much as such contributions received from the employees have been deposited in the relevant fund before filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act which has been communicated in the response to adjustment u/s 143(1)(a), and the issue is directly covered by jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd. (368 ITR 749); as much, the impugned adjustment ought not to be made. 5.1.2 The appellant filed original return of income on 31.10.2019 declaring total income of ₹ 25,65,467/- under normal provisions and ₹ 21,97,669/- under MAT [(iii) disallowance of loss claimed. if return of the previous year for which set off of loss is claimed was furnished beyond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 923/-, as the same were deposited to respective fund by the appellant beyond the due dates as prescribed under the said statute. 5.1.3 During appeal proceedings, the appellant submitted that the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that contributions to ESIC were made before the due date of filing of original return of income by the appellant and as such the same was allowable as deduction in the return of income and accordingly in line with interpretation laid down by the jurisdictional High Court. Reliance was placed upon following judgments: (i) Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Jurisdictional High Court) in the case of CIT vs. Ghatge Patil Transports Ltd [2015] 53 taxmann.com 141 (Bombay) (ii) CIT vs. Hindustan Organics Chemicals Ltd (2014) 89 CCH 0157 (Iii) Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd [2010] 188 TAXMAN 265 (DELHI) 5.1.4 I have considered facts of the case as well as written submission of the appellant. In this regard, Section 143(1) of Income Tax Act is reproduced below: Assessment. 143. (1) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, such r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) erred in determining the Gross Total Income at ₹ 47,62,390/- as against ₹ 25,65,467/- per return of income and in consequently, raising a demand of ₹ 11,90,598/-. The appellant contended that the Assessing Officer ought to have accepted the ₹ 25,65,467/- Income per return of income for the reasons more specifically mentioned in the ground of appeal nos 2. 5.2.2 In view of detailed reasons given in Ground No.2 above, Ground No.1 is dismissed. 5.3.1 In Ground No.3, the appellant has contended that the appellants crave leave to add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of appeal. 5.3.2 Since the appellant did not add to, alter or amend the aforestated grounds of appeal, Ground No.3 is dismissed. 10. I find merit in the contention of Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the issue is covered by the judgement of Hon ble Delhi High Court rendered in the case of AIMIL Ltd. (supra) wherein it has been held:- 17. We may only add that if the employees contribution is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts and is deposited ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
