Atul Enterprises, Ahmedabad V. The DCIT, CPC , Bangaluru

ITA 282/AHD/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8763 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV
• Keywords: Tax effect
• Section: 6; 43B; 143(1); 139(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD M JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I .T .A . N o . 2 8 2/ A h d /2 0 20 ( A s s e s s me nt Y ea r : 20 1 8- 19 ) At u l En te rp r i se s L- 5 9, 6 0 , G . I . D. C ., Es t a t e, O dh av, Ah me da bad-3 82 41 5 V s . D C I T C P C , B a n ga lu r u [ P AN N o. A A DF A 5 3 5 4 Q ] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR D a t e of H ea r i ng 09.06.2022 D a t e of P r o no u n ce me nt 10.06.2022 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.02.2020 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad arising out of the order dated 16.10.2019 passed by the DCIT(CPC), Bengaluru under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are read as under: “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in making disallowance of Rs.692355/- u/s.36(1)(va) of the Act eventhough the same is allowable u/s. 43B of the Act on payment basis. 2. The learned CIT(A) ought to have seen that the appellant paid the said P.F., E.S.I. during the financial year itself/before the due date of filing of return and hence fully allowable. 3. The learned CIT(A) while passing the said order have not allowed opportunity of being heard eventhough the appellant had filed adjournment letter ITA No. 282/Ahd/2020 Atul Enterprises vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2018-19 - 2 - requesting to file written submissions along with case laws in the said matter dated Total tax effect.” 3. At the time of call, none appears on behalf of the assessee neither any written notes of submissions was filed before us. Further that it appears from the fact that employees’ contribution has not been paid within the due date prescribed under the provision of law though, according to the assessee it was paid before filing of return for the year under consideration. We find the identical facts and circumstances of the case the ground of appeal has already been decided against the assessee by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. GSRTC, reported in 366 ITR 170. While dealing with this particular aspect of the matter the Hon’ble Court was pleased to observe as follows: “"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 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]” Respectfully relying upon the order passed by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court on the identical facts we find it fit and proper to dismiss this ground of appeal filed by the assessee. Hence, the appeal ITA No. 282/Ahd/2020 Atul Enterprises vs. DCIT Asst.Year –2018-19 - 3 - filed by the assessee is found to be devoid of any merit and thus, dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal preferred by the assessee is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 10/06/2022 Sd/- Sd/- (PRAMOD M JAGTAP) (Ms. MADHUMITA ROY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 10/06/2022 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आय ु त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आय ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील!य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड' फाईल / Guard file. आदेशान ु सार/ BY ORDER, उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad 1. Date of dictation 09.06.2022 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 09.06.2022 3. Other Member..................... 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S .06.2022 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement .06.2022 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 10 .06.2022 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 10 .06.2022 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk.......................................... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order.......................... 10. Date of Despatch of the Order..........................................