9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 1206X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15 (10) TMI 1601 - ITAT HYDERABAD] and also taking support from the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Vegetables Products Ltd.[ 1973 (1) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] decided the issue in favour of the assessee. - I.T.A.No.477/Viz/2018 - - - Dated:- 25-2-2022 - Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Hon ble Judicial Member And Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon ble Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri I.Kama Sastry, AR For the Respondent : Shri Sankar Pandi, DR ORDER PER SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the revenue against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]-1, Visakhapatnam dated 20.06.2018 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.)2006-07. 2. The only grievance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction otherwise allowable in this Act in respect of any sum payable by the assessee as an employer by way of contribution of any fund such as provident fund shall be allowed if it is paid on or before the due date as contemplated u/s 139(1) of the Act. The Ld.AR relied on the following case laws : (i) M/s Fluid Air India Pvt. Ltd. Vs.DCIT (63 ITD 182) (ii) Madras Radiator Pressing Ltd. Vs. CIT (56 TTJ 662) (iii) CIT Vs. Kichha Sugar Co. Ltd. (356 ITR 351) (iv) CIT Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. (366 ITR 163) (v) CIT Vs. Hemla Embroidery Mills Pvt. Ltd. (98 ITR 107) (vi) CIT Vs. Nipso Polyfabriks Ltd. (350 ITR 327) (vii) CIT Vs. AIMIL Ltd. (321 ITR 508) (viii) ANZ Information Technology Pvt. Ltd. (318 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (v) Hon ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs. Nexus Computer Pvt. Ltd. (vi) Hon ble Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Nipso Poly Fabric Pvt. Ltd. (350 ITR 327 HP) Relying on the above decisions of Hon ble High Courts and also on the similar views taken by ITAT Mumbai, Pune Chennai, the Ld.CIT(A) directed the AO to delete the impugned addition and held that the assessee would be entitled for deduction of the employees contribution of PF ESI made before the due date of filing of the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act and allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. On being aggrieved, the revenue preferred an appeal before the ITA, raising the following ground of appeal : 1. The Order of the Ld.CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 77; 2,07,51,824/-. The Ld..DR submitted that the lower authorities have rightly disallowed the payments made belatedly as per the respective Acts. He further submitted that the Employees Contribution to PF and ESI is allowed as deduction, if the same is deposited on or before the due date specified under the provisions of Employees Provident Fund Act and ESI Act. He further submitted that since the assessee has not deposited the contribution to respective fund account on the date as prescribed in Explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the disallowance made by the AO was just, proper and reasonable, therefore, submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) rightly confirmed the disallowance made by the AO, hence the addition is to be sustained. The Ld.D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d as follows : 8. The Hon ble Karnataka High Court, in the case of Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT 366 ITR 408 took the view that the word contribution occurring in section 43B of the Act would include employees contribution to PF in the light of the definition of the word contribution as per the provisions of section 2(c) of the PF Act. As per the said section, contribution would mean both employer s contribution and employees contribution. Accordingly, it was held that the provisions of section 43B of the Act allowing deduction for payment made before the due date of filing of Income Tax return cannot be ignored. Similarly, the ITAT, Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of Tetra Soft (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (2015) 40 ITR (Trib) 470 he ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tables Products Ltd. reported in 88 ITR 192, wherein it was held that if two reasonable constructions of a taxing provision are possible that construction which favours the assessee must be adopted. After considering all these decisions, the coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the assessee in the case of Focus Trans Tech Shipping Private Ltd., Vs DCIT, Visakhapatnam in I.T.A. No.132/Viz/2021 dated 23.09.2021. Therefore, respectfully following the view taken by the Tribunal on similar set of facts, we hold that the orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) needs no interference. Hence, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. 10. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
