9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (10) TMI 160X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xplanation being prospective. Late payment of employee s contribution as per the Provident Fund Act - HELD THAT:- We find that the Revenue has not brought any contrary material to rebut the finding of Ld.CIT(A). Since the issue is otherwise decided in favour of the assessee by the judgement of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT vs Pro Interactive Service (India) Pvt.Ltd. [ 2018 (9) TMI 2009 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that legislative intent was/is to ensure that the amount paid is allowed as an expenditure only when payment is actually made. We do not think that the legislative intent and objective is to treat belated payment of Employee s Provident Fund (EPD) and Employee s State Insurance Scheme (ESI) as deemed income of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same u/s 36(1)(va), if the said amount is paid before due date as per the provisions of respective PF Act etc. In this case the assessee has failed to pay an amount of Rs. 19,19,163/- within due date. Further the assessee has failed to explain how the judgment quoted by it are applicable to the facts of this case. FACTS OF THE CASE 3. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case, the assessee filed its return of income on 17.10.2016, declaring total income of Rs.30,01,77,660/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ the Act ] vide order dated 29.12.2018. While framing the assessment, the Assessing Officer [ AO ] made addition of Rs.19,19,163/- on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. We find that Ld.CIT(A) has decided the issue by observing as under:- 5.6. Ground No.6 pertains to disallowance of Rs.7,69,68,431/- u/s 14A. In this case, the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act r.w.rule 8D of Rs.7,69,68,431/- has been contested by the appellant. The A.O. had made the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act read with rule 8D on the basis of the CBDT Circular No.5/2014 dated 11.02.2014. The A.O. has worked out disallowance under 8D(ii) 8D(iii) of the Rules. Total disallowance made by the A.O. is Rs.7,69,68,431/-. Admittedly, the appellant do not have any exempt income during the year under consideration. Therefore, the addition made u/s 14A o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pective in operation. As a corollary, the law prevailing prior to the insertion of Explanation would continue to apply and shall not be guided by the Explanation being prospective. We therefore see no reason to interfere with the order of the CIT(A) which is in sync with extant law as expounded by judicial precedents. 10. Therefore, respectfully following the above-mentioned binding precedents, we do not see any reason to disturb the finding of Ld.CIT(A), the same is hereby affirmed. Thus, Ground No.1 raised by the Revenue is dismissed. 11. Ground No.2 raised by the Revenue is against the deletion of addition of Rs.19,19,163/- paid on account of late payment of employee s contribution as per the Provident Fund Act. Ld. Counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
