M/s. Gajanand Labour Contractor, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-9(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 2546/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 254620514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 02-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K MISHRA JDIT
• Assessee Lawyers: N C AMIN
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

, , , , SMC, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, SMC BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' # ' !' # ' !' # ' !' # ' BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT ITA NO.2546/AHD/2011 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2008-2009] SHRI GAJANAND LABOUR CONTRACTOR AT: MODASAR, POST: SANAND SANAND BAVLA ROAD BAVLA, AHMEDABAD 382 220. PAN : AABFG 7636 H /VS. ITO, WARD-9(2) AHMEDABAD. ( (( (%& %& %& %& / APPELLANT) ( (( ('(%& '(%& '(%& '(%& / RESPONDENT) )* + , #/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI N.C. AMIN . + , #/ REVENUE BY : D.K. MISHRA, JDIT / + *01/ DATE OF HEARING : 2 ND DECEMBER, 2013 234 + *01/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-1-2014 #5 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XV, AHM EDABAD DATED 7.7.2011. 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF ONLY ONE DAY IN FILING PRESE NT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONDO NATION APPLICATION AND HAS EXPLAINED THE REASON FOR THE DE LAY OF ONE DAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LEA RNED DR HAS ITA NO.2546/AHD/2011 -2- OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF T HE ASSESSEE. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON ISSUE OF CONDO NATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE EXPLAINED BY TH E ASSESSEE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR CONDONATIO N OF DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, AND ACCORDINGLY, THE DELAY IS CONDONED. 3. THE GROUND NOS.1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1) THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACT S OF THE CASE IN DISALLOWING RS.3,00,002/- U/S.36(1)(VA) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. 2) THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY LD.AO CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND APP ELLANT AHS PAID THE SAME ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING O F RETURN OF INCOME AND THEREFORE NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE U/S.43B OF THE IT ACT. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND WAS DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN IN THIS CASE, AND THEREFORE, NO DISAL LOWANCE CAN BE MADE UNDER SECTION 43B OF THE ACT, AS HELD BY THE HONBL E SUPREME COURT IN ALLIED MOTORS P. LTD. VS. CIT, 224 ITR 677 (SC) AND CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD., 3129 ITR 306 (SC). THE LEARN ED DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). HE SUBMIT TED THAT THE AMOUNT OF PF RELATES TO THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION , AND THEREFORE, THE ISSUE SHOULD BE DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). I FIND THAT THE ISSUE OF DE POSIT OF EMPLOYEES ITA NO.2546/AHD/2011 -3- CONTRIBUTION TO THE PF, DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE, PRIOR TO THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN, IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE AS SESSEE WITH THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE, AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CA SE OF VIRENDRASINGH JITENDRASINGH VAGHELA IN ITA NO.2265/ AHD/2009 ORDER DATED 23/9/2009. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE IS DECIDE D IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, AND THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD