9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 37X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acts decided the issue in favour of the assessee, relying on the decision of Hon ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd. [ 2014 (3) TMI 386 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.A.No. 1/Viz/2022 - - - Dated:- 25-2-2022 - Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon ble Judicial Member And Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon ble Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri G.V.N.Hari, AR For the Respondent : Shri Sankar Pandi, DR ORDER PER SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 22.11.2021 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2017-18. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,27,062 made by the assessing officer towards disallowance of delayed remittance of Employees contribution to PF and ESI . 3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered that the disallowance is not warranted in as much as the Employees contribution to PF was remitted before the due date of filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act. 5. The only grievance of the assessee is that the lower authorities made disallowance of ₹ 8,27,062/- on account of late deposit of ESI and EPF contribution from the employees. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the assessee made the payment before filing of the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt in the case of CIT Vs. Merchem Ltd. reported in (2015) 378 ITR 443 and Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (366 ITR 170) [2014] (Gujarat) reported in (2014) 366 ITR 170 41 taxmann.com 100. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records and after considering the facts and circumstance of the case, it is undisputed fact that the payments were made beyond due date of specified time mentioned in the Provident Fund Act. It is also admitted fact that the payments were made by the assessee before filing of the due date of filing the return of income. On this aspect, the coordinate Bench of ITAT, Visakhapatnam on similar set of facts decided the issue in favour of the assessee, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. In the case of CIT Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd. 35 Taxman 616, the Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan, after referring to the apex court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Alom Extrusions Ltd. 319 ITR 306 CIT Vs. Vinay Cement Ltd. held that the deductions should be allowed for the payment of employees contribution made before the due date of filing of return. Similarly, in the case of CIT Vs. State Bank of Bikaner, the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court held that contribution paid after the due date under the respective Act, but before filing the return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act cannot be disallowed u/s 43B of the Act and or u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act. Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Visakhapatnam considered the decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
