Arvind Goodhill Suit Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1362/AHD/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3451 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 22-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.S. SHUKLA
• Section: 43B; 143(3)

Judgement Text

, ‘A’ । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMEBR & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1362/Ahd/2019 ( Assess ment Ye ar : 2016-17) Ar vi nd G oo dh il l S uit M a nu fa ct uri n g P v t. Lt d. Arv in d Mi ll P re mi s es, Nar od a Ro ad , Ah m eda ba d / V s . Th e AC IT Cir cl e - 1 (1 )( 1) , Pr at ya k sh Kar B ha va n, A h me dab ad यी ल सं./ ीआ आर सं./P A N / G IR N o . : A A LC A 1 9 6 4 H (अपील Appellant) . . ( य / Respondent) अपील र स /Appellant by : Sh ri Dh ru na l Bh at t, A. R. य क र स / Respondent by : Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr. D.R. स क र D a t e o f H e a r i n g 26/04/2022 !"# क र /D a t e o f P r o n o u n c e m e n t 28/04/2022 ORDER PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JM: The appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Ahmedabad (‘CIT(A)’ in short) vide Appeal No. CIT(A)-1/DCIT Cir.1(1)(1)/10280/2018-19 dated 15.07.2019 arising in the assessment order dated 21.12.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY. 2016-17. ITA No. 1362/Ahd/2019 [Arvind Goodhill Suit Mfg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT] A.Y. 2016-17 - 2 - 2. The ground of appeal raised by assessee reads as under: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming disallowance to the extent of Rs.73,59,568 out of the total disallowance of Rs.75,18,628/- made by the learned Assessing Officer in respect5 of late payment of employees’ contribution to P.F. and ESIC. “ 3. The only disputed issue in this appeal, as reflected in the relevant grounds of appeal, is the disallowance sustained by the learned CIT(A) to the extent of Rs.73,59,568 on account of late payment of employees' contribution to P.F. and ESIC. The Assessing Officer made total disallowance of Rs.75,18,628/- out of which contribution to ESIC of Rs.1,59,060/- was paid by the assessee-company on 22 nd June, 2015 as against the due date of 21 st June, 2015. The learned CIT(A) allowed deduction in respect of the aforesaid sum of Rs.1,59,060/- on the ground that 21 st June, 2015 was a Sunday and on that account payment could not have been made by the appellant-company. However, the disallowance of the remaining amount of Rs.73,59,568/- was confirmed by the learned CIT(A). 4. At the time of hearing ld. A.R. Shri Dhrunal Bhatt fairly conceded that matter is against the assessee in view of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court order in the case of CIT vs. GSRTC and requested that he does not want to contest the appeal. Since ld. A.R. has conceded himself and matter is against him squarely covered by judgment of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the matter of CIT vs. GSRTC 366 ITR 170 wherein it is held as under: "Section 43B, read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Business disallowance — Certain deductions to be allowed on actual payment (Employees contribution) - Whether where an employer has not credited sum received by it as employees' contribution to employees' account in relevant fund ITA No. 1362/Ahd/2019 [Arvind Goodhill Suit Mfg. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT] A.Y. 2016-17 - 3 - on or before due date as prescribed in Explanation to section 36(1)(va), assesses shall not be entitled to deduction of such amount though he deposits same before due date prescribed under section 43B i.e., prior to filing of return under section 139(1) -Held, yes - Assesses State transport corporation collected a sum being provident fund contribution from its employees - However, it had deposited lesser sum in provident fund account — Assessing Officer disallowed same under section 43B -However, Commissioner (Appeals) deleted disallowance on ground that employees contribution was deposited before filing return - Whether since assessee had not deposited said contribution in respective fund account on date as prescribed in Explanation to section 36(1 )(va), disallowance made by Assessing Officer was just and proper - Held, yes [Para 8] [In favour of revenue] 5. Since, matter is squarely covered against the assessee by the judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court, thus, in view of the above, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACC OUNTANT MEMB ER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 28/04/2022 True Copy S.K.SINHA ेश ! " #े" / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- $. र / Revenue 2. आ दक / Assessee '. सं(ं)* आयकर आय + / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय + - अपील / CIT (A) .. / 0 1ीय 2 2 )*3 आयकर अपील य अ)*कर#3 अ45द ( द / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. 1 78 9 ल / Guard file. By order/आद श स 3 उप/स4 यक पं ीक र आयकर अपील य अ)*कर#3 अ45द ( द । This Order pronounced in Open Court on 28/04/2022