Shri Ghanshyambhai Ramubhai Solanki, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-9(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 2547/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9720 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 08-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J P JANGID
• Assessee Lawyers: JAMIN SHAH

Judgement Text

, D IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2547/AHD/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-2009 SHRI GHANSHYAMSINGH RAMUBHAI SOLANKI PROP: SHIV SHAKTI LABOUR CONTRACTOR 20, VAISHALI SOCIETY, BHAVLA HIGHWAY BAVLA, AHMEDABAD 382 220. PAN: AMMPS 1155J VS ITO, WARD - 9(2) AHMEDABAD. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI JAMIN SHAH REVENUE BY : SHRI J.P. JANGID / DATE OF HEARING : 08/07/2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17/07/2015 $%/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A)-XV, AHMEDABAD DATED 7.7.2011 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008- 09. ITA NO.2547/AHD/2011 2 2. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT T HE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,29,189 /- UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING, AN APPLICA TION FOR ADJOURNMENT BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FILED BEFORE THE TR IBUNAL. IT IS PLEADED IN THE APPLICATION THAT THE AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVE SHRI M.C.AMIN HAD GONE TO USA FOR HIS MEDICAL TREATMENT. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE ISSUE BEING COVERED BY THE JUDGEMEN T OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, WE DID NOT GRANT ADJOURN MENT AND PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERIT EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.9.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.2, 01,480/-. ON SCRUTINY OF THE ACCOUNTS, IT REVELED TO THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COLLECTED A SUM OF RS.3,29,189/- FROM THE EMPLOYEES TOWARDS CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND. THE PAYMENT OF THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF WAS NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSE E WITHIN THE DUE DATE. THE LEARNED AO OBSERVED THAT AS PER SECTION 36(1)(VA) READ WITH SECTION 2(24)(X) OF THE ACT, DEDUCTION IS NOT ADMIS SIBLE TO THE ASSESSEE, IF THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT MADE WITHIN THE DUE DATE P RESCRIBED UNDER THE P.F. ACT. 5. APPEAL TO THE CIT(A) DID NOT BRING ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LEARNED DR, WE HAVE G ONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUT E IS SQUARELY COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD., 366 ITR 170. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT IF TH E EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PF A ND ESI HAS NOT BEEN REMITTED TO THE CONCERNED ACCOUNT WITHIN THE DUE DA TE PRESCRIBED UNDER THOSE ACT, THEN THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT GET DEDUCTION ON ACTUAL PAYMENT ITA NO.2547/AHD/2011 3 BEFORE FILING OF THE RETURN. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWIN G THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL. IT IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY THE 17 TH DAY OF JULY, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER