ITO Ward 5(3), CHENNAI V. Quasar Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 2344/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5041 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 25-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: N VIJAYAKUMARAN
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D(SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI . , ! ' [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER ] ./I.T.A. NO. 2344/MDS/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-2014. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3) CHENNAI VS. M/S. QUASAR CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD, 33, BALAMMAL BUILDING, 1 ST FLOOR, BURKIT ROAD, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017. [PAN AAACQ 0062D] ( #$ / APPELLANT) ( %&#$ /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. B. SAGADEVAN, IRS, JCIT. /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. N. VIJAYAKUMARAN, CA /DATE OF HEARING : 04-1-2018 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08-1-2018 ' / O R D E R REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL AGGRIEVED ON DELETION OF D ISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.36(1) (VA) R. W.S. 2(24) (X) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE FOR DELAYED REMITTANCES OF E MPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS ESI AND PF. ACCORDING TO HIM, BY VIRTUE OF JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD, 319 ITR 306 SUCH CLAIM COULD NOT BE ALLOWED. ITA NO. 2344/MDS/2017. :- 2 -: 3. PER CONTRA, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMI TTED THAT DELAYED REMITTANCES TOWARDS ESI AND PF WAS ELIGIB LE FOR DEDUCTION BY VIRTUE OF JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. INDUSTRIAL SECURITY & INTELLIGENCE IND IA PVT. LTD (TAX CASE (APPEAL) NOS.585 AND 586 OF 2015, DATED 24.07. 2015 ). 4. AD LIBITUM REPLY OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE WAS THAT CIRCULAR NO.22/2015, DATED 17.12.2015 OF CENTR AL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DID NOT GIVE ROOM FOR THE TYPE OF INTERPRETAT ION CANVASSED BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT A SUM OF RS.39,05,049/- EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF/E SI WAS REMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO THE LAST DAY OF FILING OF RETURN THROUGH AFTER THE DUE DATE MENTIONED IN THE RESPECTIVE AMENDMENTS . THEIR LORDSHIPS IN THE CASE OF M/S. INDUSTRIAL SECURITY & INTELLIGENCE INDIA PVT. LTD (SURPA) HAD HELD AS UNDER AT PARAS 5 & 6 OF ITS JUDGMENT. 5. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY RELIED O N THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ALOM EXTRUSION S LTD. REPORTED IN 319 ITR 306, WHEREBY, THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT O MISSION OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 43B AND AMENDMENT TO FIRS T PROVISO BY FINANCE ACT, 2003 ARE CURATIVE IN NATURE AND ARE EF FECTIVE RETROSPECTIVELY, I.E., WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.1988 I. E., THE DATE OF INSERTION OF FIRST PROVISO. THE DELHI HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT V. AMIL LTD. REPORTED IN 321 ITR 508 HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PROVIDENT FUND AND ESI AFTER DUE DATE AS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE RELEVANT ACT , BUT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN UNDER THE INCOME TAX A CT, NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 43B AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2003. ITA NO. 2344/MDS/2017. :- 3 -: 6. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD REMITTED T HE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION BEYOND THE DUE DATE FOR PAYMENT, BUT W ITHIN THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. HENCE, FOLLO WING THE ABOVE-SAID DECISIONS, WE FIND NO REASON TO DIFFER WITH THE FIN DINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO QUESTION OF LAW MUCH LESS ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR CONSIDERATIO N IN THESE APPEALS. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE TAX CASE (APPEALS) STAND DISM ISSED. NO COSTS. CONSEQUENTLY, M.P.NO.1 OF 2015 IS ALSO DISMISSED. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE VIEW TAKEN BY THE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAD ALSO CONSIDERED THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD (SUPRA) WHILE MAKING THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO I NTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S). 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUAR Y, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED: JANUARY, 2018 KV %& '()( / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. *+, / CIT(A) 5. (-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. * / CIT 6. .01 / GF