DCIT, CHENNAI V. Armour Consultants (P) Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1315/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4618 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 11-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DASGUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: R SIVARAMAN
• Section: 43B; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE DR.O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1315/MDS/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE I(1), CHENNAI 34. VS. M/S. ARMOUR CONSULTANTS (P) LTD., NO. 10, POES ROAD (OFF ELDAMS ROAD), TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI - 18. [PAN : AADCA2759C] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. DAS GUPTA, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. SIVARAMAN, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 11.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.09.2013 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VI, CHENNA I DATED 09.01.2013 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT 2007-08. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY BELONGING TO SHRIRAM GROUP OF COMPANIES. TH E ASSESSEE FILED RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` .1,42,56,425/-. AFTER DUE PROCESS, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E INCOME TAX I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 13 33 315 1515 15/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 2 ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED BPO CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SISTER CONC ERNS NAMELY, SHRIRAM OVERSEAS FINANCE LTD., SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS, SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE CO. LTD. AND SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANC E CO. LTD. 3. IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), BY FOLLOWING A SSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 DECIDED BY THE ITAT IN I.T.A. NO. 736/MDS/2008 VIDE ORDER DATED 26.06.2009 ALLOWE D THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN I.T.A. NO. 296/MDS/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 VIDE O RDER DATED 02.05.2012. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FAIRLY CONCEDED T HAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THE ASSESSMENT I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 13 33 315 1515 15/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 3 YEAR 2006-07 IN I.T.A. NO. 296/MDS/2012 IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASE, THE TRIBUNAL BY FOLLOWING ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 08.09.2011 IN I.T.A. NO. 296/MDS/2009 AND I.T.A. NO S. 1331 TO 1335/MDS/2009 AND THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 4. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT IN RESPECT OF FIRST ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCE OF BPO CHARGES OF ` .6,12,43,000/- MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA), THIS TRIBUNAL DECIDED THIS ISSUE AT PARA 5 AND 6 OF ITS ORDER AS UNDER: 5. THE FIRST ISSUE OF THIS APPEAL ASSAILS THE LD. CIT(A)S DIRECTION TO ALLOW THE EXPENSES RELATING TO BPO CHARGES. IN G ROUND NO.2.2 IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RELIED ON H IS PREDECESSORS ORDER DATED 17.1.2008 IN I.T.A.NO. 868/MDS/06-07 FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ONL Y GRUDGE OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT THIS ORDER HAS NOT BECOME FINAL AS FURTHER APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED AGAINST THAT ORDER. OBVIOUSLY, A PPARENTLY AND OSTENSIBLY THIS ISSUE STANDS COVERED BY THE TRIBUNA L ORDER DATED 26.6.2009 RENDERED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, AND HAS NOT BEEN OVERRULED. THE JUDICIAL PROPRIETY DEMANDS THAT THE TRIBUNAL ORDER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE HAS TO BE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW. HENCE, WE SEE NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THIS FINDING OF THE LD. CIT( A). THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY HAS UTILIZED INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITY AND MA NPOWER OF THREE COMPANIES VIZ. M/S SHRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANCE CO. LT D., SHRIRAM INVESTMENTS LTD., AND SHRIRAM CITY UNION FINANCE LT D. FOR PROVIDING SUPPORT SERVICES IN RELATION TO ITS INSURANCE BY EN TERING INTO OUTSOURCING AGREEMENTS AND PAYING BPO CHARGES FOR T HE WORK DONE BY THEM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THIS CLAI M ON SIMILAR SET OF FACTS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, THEREFORE, HE HAS DISALLOWED IN THIS YEAR AS WELL. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TR IBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE VIDE ORDER DATED 26.6.2009, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, IN I.T.A.NO. 736/MDS/2008. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE EXT RACT RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS 23 TO 28 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER: I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 13 33 315 1515 15/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 4 23. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAR EFULLY IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD FI LED THE COPIES OF AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH THE BPO COMPANIES (PLAC ED AT PAGES 161 TO 188 OF THE PAPER BOOK) AS WELL AS THE NATURE OF SERVICES PROVIDED VIDE LETTERS DATED 10.8.2006, 21.8.2006 AND 26.12.2 006 WHICH ARE PLACED ON THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 126 TO 157 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS MAINLY ENGAGED IN TWO SEGMENTS OF BUSINESS I.E. TRUCK INSURANCE BUSINESS AND CORPORAT E AND RETAIL LINE OF BUSINESS WHICH HAS BEEN TERMED AS NON-TRUCK BUSINE SS. FOR TRUCK BUSINESS, ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD TO PROVIDE SERVICES ALL OVER THE COUNTRY SPREAD INTO MORE THAN 200 LOCATIONS. SINCE ASSESSEE-COMPANY DID NOT HAVE OFFICES, IT HAD TAKEN THE SERVICES OF THREE COMPANIES FOR PROVIDING OFFICE SPACE AND OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE. FO R EXAMPLE, IN THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH SRIRAM TRANSPORT FINANC E CO. LTD, THE NATURE OF SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY HP COMPANY HAS BEEN LISTED AS UNDER: ' SUP POR T SER VI CES T O BE PRO VIDED BY THE HP COM PA NY TH E HP COMPAN Y H ERE B Y AGRE E THAT IT SHALL PROVID E THE FOLLOW ING CLIENT S UP POR T SERVI CES TO ARMOU R: ( A ) P ROVID E C LI E NT SUPPORT S E RV ICES I NCL UDING IN S P ECT I O N OF ARMOU R CUS T OMERS , COL L ECTION AND PAYME NT OF PREMIUM , M A ILS , CO-ORDI N A T I ON WITH I NSUR A N CE C OMPA NY/POLICY HOL DE RS FOR PAYME NT O F PREMIUM, D ELIVERY & COL LECTION OF INSURANCE POLIC I E S E T C AND COLL EC TI ON OF PR OPOSAL , VE H ICLE IN SPECT I O N , CLIENT BACKGROUND, DETAILS REGARDING TRUCK PORTFOLI OS AS PER ARMOUR POLICIES AND GUIDELINES. (B) PROVIDE USE OF ITS MANPOWER FOR MARKET SURVEY A ND DATA COLLECTION RELATING TO POTENTIAL BUSINESS PROSPECTS IN THE TOPOGRAPHICAL AREA OF THEIR RESPECTIVE BRANCHES. (C) PROVIDE USE OF ITS MANPOWER FOR FOLLOW UP WORK RELATING TO CLAIMS MANAGEMENT AND ALL OTHER AFTER SALES SERVICI NG OF CLIENTS FOR TRUCK BUSINESS AND OTHER RETAIL CLIENTS OF ARMO UR. THESE SERVICES SHALL BE PROVIDED BY THE HP COMPANY AT ITS VARIOUS BRANCH OFFICES AS SET OUT IN SCHEDULE I TO THIS AGR EEMENT. 24. FOR THIS, COMPANY AGREED TO PAY A COMPENSATION OF ` .4,50,000/- PER MONTH AND THE LIST OF BRANCHES NUMB ERING 41 WHERE SUCH SERVICES WERE TO BE PROVIDED HAS ALSO BE EN I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 13 33 315 1515 15/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 5 ATTACHED. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF SRIRAM INVESTME NTS LTD., THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY TOOK THE SERVICES OF OFFICES ETC A T 105 BRANCHES FOR A COMPENSATION OF ` . 13,90,000/- PER MONTH. IN VARIOUS LETTERS WRITTEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, D ETAILED NATURE OF SERVICES HAVE BEEN GIVEN AND THE SAME WAS SUMMAR IZED IN LETTER DATED 26.12.2006 WHICH READS AS UNDER: U S E O F OFFICE SPACE AND INFRASTRUC T U R E AVAIL AB L E A T T HE S PEC I F IE D BRANCH OFFICE S OF THE HP CO M PANIES ( AR O UND 2 00 L OCA TION S ) SUCH AS FURN I T U RE, FIXTURE AND FITTING S CO N SI S TI NG OF T AB L E S , CH AIRS , CUPBOA RDS , FANS , AIR CONDITI O N ER S E TC . T H I S SAVES T HE COMPANY FRO M I N C U R RI NG O F ANY C AP I T A L EX P ENDITURE AND RENT AND OTHER REGU L A R RE PA I R & MAINTENAN CE E XP E NDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF TRUCK I NS U RAN CE BU S INE S S . USE OF T ELEPHONE L I NES A ND CO M P U TE R S , COMP U T ER NETW ORK I NG , SOFTWARE ETC PROVIDED FOR TH E PURP O SE OF T R U CK IN SURAN C E BUSINESS AT ALL THE L OCA TI O N S SAVING A RM OU R FROM THE TELEPHON E AND SO FTW ARE DEVELOPMEN T E XPE NS ES R E L A TING TO THE TRUCK INSUR A NC E BUS I N ESS . USE AND ACCESS OF W IDE RANGE OF FA C ILITIES L I KE T YPIN G , MA IL HANDLING, MESSENGER SER VICE AND OTHE R ADMINIST RA TI VE SE RV I CE S [VIZ. PRINTING & STATI ONER Y, POSTAGE , T RAVELL I NG & C ONVEY ANC E EXPENSES RELATING T O T RU CK INSURA N CE BUSINESS]. USE OF BPO ENTITYS MANPOWER SAVING ARMOUR FROM INCURRING SALARY, PF AND OTHER EMPLOYEE BENEFITS, S TAFF WELFARE EXPENSES, TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE EXPENSE S ETC. FOR PROVIDING CLIENT SUPPORT SERVICES INCLUDING INS PECTION OF ARMOUR CUSTOMERS (TRUCK OWNERS, COLLECTION AND PAYM ENT OF PREMIUM, MAILS, COORDINATION WITH INSURANCE COMPANY/POLICY HOLDERS FOR PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, DELI VERY AND COLLECTION OF INSURANCE POLICIES ETC AND COLLEC TION OF PROPOSAL, VEHICLE INSPECTION, CLIENT BACKGROUND DET AILS REGARDING TRUCK PORTFOLIOS AS PER ARMOUR POLICIES A ND GUIDELINES. FOR MARKET SU RVEY AND D AT A COL L E CTI O N R ELAT ING TO POTENTIAL BUSINESS PROSP E C TS I N T H E TOPOGRAPHIC A L A R E A OF THEIR RESPECTIVE BR ANCHES . I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 13 33 315 1515 15/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 6 FOR FO L LOW-U P W ORK RELATING TO C L AIMS M ANAGEME NT A ND AL L OTH E R A FTER S A L ES SERV I CING O F CLIENTS FOR TRUCK S BU S I N E SS AND O T HER RET A IL CLIENTS OF A RMOUR .' 25 . IN T HE SAMP L E DOCUM ENTS , F OR EXAMP L E , TH E R E IS A LETTER DATED 24 .1 . 200 4 , AD DR E SS E D TO S HRI JAM A L BH A I SINDHI W HEREB Y CH EQUE HAS BEE N DE S PATCHE D TO HIM B Y S RIR A M TRAN SP O R T FINANCE C O . AND C OPY OF THIS LETTE R H AS B EE N SE NT TO THE ASSESSEE C OMP ANY FOR I NFORMATIO N . T HEN IN THE LETTE R DATED 1 5 . 1 1 . 2 003, SRIRAM TRANSP ORT FI NANCE CO . LT D DESPATCHED THE SPOT R E P O RT A L O NG WI TH P H O T OGRAPHS TO SHRI N ITIN KHOLE F O R DO I NG C ORRECTION IN THE R EPO RT AND A C TIO N H AS B EE N REF E RR ED T O THE ASSE SS E E CO MPANY . T HES E K I NDS O F E XA MPLES C L EAR L Y SHOW TH AT WHILE PROV I DING S ER VI CES OF INSURANC E B R O KER , ASSES SEE N EEDS A BIG GE R IN FRASTRUCTU R E FOR CO L L ECT I NG PREM I UM S AND THEN DELIVERING POLICIES TO VARIOUS CUSTOMERS. LATER ON, IF ANY CLAIMS ARE RAIS ED THEN ASSESSEE- COMPANY HAD TO ORGANIZE SURVEYORS, GET THEIR REPORT S, SEND THE SAME TO THE INSURANCE COMPANIES AND FOLLOW UP THE CLAIMS WI TH INSURANCE COMPANIES. LAST STEP WOULD BE OBTAINING THE CHEQUES AND HANDING OVER THE SAME TO VARIOUS CUSTOMERS. ALL THESE THING S REQUIRE BIG INFRASTRUCTURE AND SINCE ASSESSEE-COMPANY DID NOT H AVE ITS OWN OFFICES AND MANPOWER, IT TOOK THE SERVICES OF ASSOCIATE COM PANIES ON BPO BAS IS . WE FI ND THAT ASSE SSI N G O F FI C E R HAS DI S ALL OWED THIS CLAIM WITHOUT EX AMIN I NG THE D E T A I L S WH IC H IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 2 6 . THE O T HER F ACTOR F O R DIS ALLOW ANCE OF THE C L AIM WA S A PPL I CATION O F S ECT I ON 40 A(1 A) . PRIOR TO 31 . 3 . 2004 , TH E RE WAS ONLY A SECTI ON 4 0A (I) WH I CH WA S SP LI T I N T O SUB CLAUSE (1 ), 1 ( A ) , 1(B ) BY F I NA NC E N O . 2 A C T 2 004 W . E . F 1 . 4 . 2005 WHI C H ME ANS THIS PR OVISI ON WAS NOT APPLI C A B L E DURING THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2004 -05 . 2 7 . T HE O TH E R I MPORTANT OBSER V A TIO N MADE BY THE AS SE SS ING O FFI C E R WAS THAT EXPEND I TURE H AS BEEN BOO K E D MAINLY ON TH E BA S IS OF J OU R NA L ENTRIES WHIC H IS A GAI N NOT CO R REC T . COP Y O F A CC OUNTS OF SR I R AM TR ANSPOR T F I NANCE CO . , SRIRAM I NVE STMENT S LT D AS WELL AS SRIRAM CITY U NION FI NANCE LTD [ AT PAGES 158 TO 1 60 OF THE PAPE R BOOK] CLEARLY SH OW THAT R EGULA R PAYMENTS HAV E BE E N MADE BY TH E ASSES SE E COMP ANY TO TH ESE COMPANIES F ROM WHOM BPO S E R V I CES WERE OBT AINED. 28 . AS FAR AS OBSERVATI O N T HAT SUCH EXPENSES W E R E NO T REFLECTED IN T H E R ESULTS FILED W I T H I RDA IS CON CERNED , WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATIO N OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS T HE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION AND ALL THESE BPO CHARGES WERE DULY RE FLECTED IN THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 13 33 315 1515 15/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 7 SECOND HALF OF THE YEAR IN THE RETURNS FILED WITH I RDA. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NOTHING WRONG IN THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH WE CONFIRM. 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBUNAL ORDER (SUPR A), WE HAVE TO ALLOW THE EXPENSES RELATING TO BPO CHARGES. ACCORDI NGLY, WE DISMISS GROUND NO.2.1 AND 2.2 OF THE APPEAL. 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS TRIBUNALS ORDER DA TED 08.09.2011 IN I.T.A. NO. 296/MDS/2009 AND IN I.T.A. NO. 1331 TO 1335/MDS /2009, IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE DELETE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SEC TION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES RELATING TO BPO CHARGES. ACC ORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE ARE DISM ISSED. 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED. 9. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVEN UE RELATES TO PAYMENTS TOWARDS PF AND ESI. 10. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DELAYED REMITTANCE OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO THE ESI OF ` .23,503/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE EMPLOYEES C ONTRIBUTION DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE SHALL FORM PART OF INCOME AS PER THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(24) AND SAME WOULD BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION UNDER SECT ION 36(1)(VA) ONLY IF THE SAME IS REMITTED WITHIN THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED UNDER THE RESPECTIVE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS DELAYED THE REMITTANCE BEYOND THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE ACT IN RESPECT OF AN AMOUNT OF I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 13 33 315 1515 15/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 8 ` .23,503/-. THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED AND A DDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS OBSERVED T HAT THE PF AND ESI DEDUCTION REMITTED WITHIN THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF A IMIL LTD. (229 CTR 448) (DELHI) AND SHAKTI BHOG FOODS PVT. LD. IN I.T.A. NO . 2777 TO 2781/DELHI/2010, DELHI ITAT. ACCORDINGLY, HE DIRECT ED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 12. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION DEDUCTED BY THE ASS ESSEE WAS PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN AND THE SAME HAS T O BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECI SION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. NEX US COMPUTER (P) LTD. [2009] 313 ITR 144. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE OR DER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 14. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID THE EMPLOYEE S CONTRIBUTION RECEIVED BY IT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN. THE HONBLE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 13 33 315 1515 15/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 9 JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. NEX US COMPUTER (P) LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE PF AND ESI CONTRIBUTION P AID BELATEDLY, BUT PRIOR TO DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN COULD NOT BE DISALLOWE D UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DE CISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ISSUE. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STAND S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON WEDNESDAY, THE 11 TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE - PRESIDENT (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 11.09.2013 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE/A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.