M/s. Meghmani Indurstries Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The DCIT Circle -2(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1153/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6050 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 04-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R ITA NO. 1153/AHD/2016 (AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) M/S. MEGHMANI INDUSTRIES LTD., PLOT NO. 27, PHASE-II, GIDC, VATVA, AHMEDABAD - 382445 APPELLANT VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD RESPONDENT PAN: AABCM0535G & ITA NO. 1154/AHD/2016 (AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) M/S. MEGHMANI DYES AND INTERMEDIATES LTD., 97, PHASE-II, GIDC, VATVA, AHMEDABAD - 382445 APPELLANT VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 2(1)(2), AHMEDABAD RESPONDENT PAN: AABCM6639D ITA NOS. 1153 & 1154/AHD/16 [MEGHMANI INDUSTRIES LT D. & MEGHMANI DYES & INTERMEDIATES LTD. VS. DCIT ] A.YS. 2012-13 - 2 - /BY ASSESSEE : NONE /BY REVENUE : SHRI PRASOON KABRA, SR. D.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 19.02.2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.02.2018 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2012-13 ARISE AGAINST THE CIT(A)-2, AHMEDABADS SEPARATE ORDERS; BOTH DATED 13.04.2016, IN CASE NOS. CIT(A)-2/127/DC. CIR. 2(1)(2)/2015-16 & CIT(A) -2/126/DC. CIR. 2(1)(2)/2015-16, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. HEARD THE REVENUE. CASE FILES PERUSED. 2. CASE CALLED TWICE. NONE APPEARS AT ASSESSEES B EHEST. THE REGISTRY HAS ALREADY SENT AN RPAD NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. WE TH EREFORE PROCEED EX PARTE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSEES SOLE GRIEVANCE PLEADED IN BOTH AP PEALS CHALLENGES CORRECTNESS OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER UPHOLDING ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION DISALLOWING EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND AND ESI OF RS.1,71,0 08/- AND RS.1,95,115/-; RESPECTIVELY, IN ITS ASSESSMENT ORDERS; BOTH DATED 27.03.2015. LOWER APPELLATE FINDINGS UNDER CHALLENGE IN FORMER CASE READ AS UND ER: 2.3 DECISION: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF LATE PAYMENT TOWARDS PF OF RS.162369/- A ND ESI OF RS.8639/-, TOTALLING ITA NOS. 1153 & 1154/AHD/16 [MEGHMANI INDUSTRIES LT D. & MEGHMANI DYES & INTERMEDIATES LTD. VS. DCIT ] A.YS. 2012-13 - 3 - TO RS.1,71,008/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDE R HAS MENTIONED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (VA) OF SUB SECTION (1) OF 36 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE SUM REFERRED TO IN S UB CLAUSE (X) OF CLAUSE (24) OF SECTION 2 OF THE ACT IF SUCH SUM IS CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EMPLOYEES ACCOUNT IN THE RELEVANT FUND ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF R ESPECTIVE ACT. THE AO HAS FURTHER RELIED ON THE RECENT JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [2014] 41 TAXMANN.COM 100 (GUJARAT). 2.4. THE APPELLANT ON THE OTHER HAND HAS STATED DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS AT THE APPELLATE STAGE THAT THE CONTRIBUTION COLLECTED FROM EMPLOYEES TOWARDS PROVIDENT FUND AND EMPLOYEES CONT RIBUTION TO ESI WERE DEPOSITED IN THE FUND AFTER THE DUE DATE MENTIONED IN THE RESPECTIVE ACT BUT BEFORE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. IN OTHER WORDS, THE APPE LLANT HAS STATED THAT THE SAID AMOUNTS OF THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION HAS BEEN DULY DEPOSITED BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME MENTIONED IN S ECTION 139(1) OF THE I, T. ACT, 1961. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RELIED ON SEVERAL JUDICIAL P RONOUNCEMENTS WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLAN T. 2.5. IT IS WORTH HERE TO MENTION THAT THE DISALLOWA NCE WAS MADE FOR THE REASON THAT EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION TO PF WAS NOT MADE WIT HIN THE DUE DATES SPECIFIED UNDER THE P.F. ACT. THE ADDITION WAS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C!T VS. GSRTC IN TAX APPEAL NO. 637 OF 2013. IT HAS BEEN FOUND THAT THE JUDGEMENT OF THE JURISDI CTIONAL GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS THE PRIORITY OVER THE OTHER DECISIONS/JUDGEMENTS CI TED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE SAME IS BINDING TO BE FOLLOWED BY THIS OFFICE. 2.6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS OF THE CASE, AND CO NSIDERING THE RECENT JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF GUJ ARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [2014] 41 TAXMANN.COM 100 (GUJARAT), TH E DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS FOUND CORRECT AND JUSTIFIED AND HENCE THE SAM E IS CONFIRMED. THUS THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. IT HAS THEREFORE COME ON RECORD THAT THE CIT(A) HA S FOLLOWED HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS ORDER IN GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CASE ITA NOS. 1153 & 1154/AHD/16 [MEGHMANI INDUSTRIES LT D. & MEGHMANI DYES & INTERMEDIATES LTD. VS. DCIT ] A.YS. 2012-13 - 4 - (SUPRA) DECIDING THE VERY QUESTION OF LAW IN REVENU ES FAVOUR. WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE IN THIS LEGAL AND FACTUAL BACKDROP. THE ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IN BOTH CASES IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 4. THESE TWO ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS T HE 21 ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018.] SD/- SD/- ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) (S. S. G ODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 21/02/2018 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) ( )*+ ,--. . /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 +23 45 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // . /0