Smt. Kanaklata Rajnath Shukla, Ankleshwar V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Bharuch

ITA 3407/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1942 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KUSHAL RATHI
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 28; 43B

Judgement Text

SMT. KANAKLATA RAJNATH SHUKLA V. ITO2(2)BHARUCH/I.T.A. NO.3407/AHD/2016/ A.Y. 12-13 PAGE 1 OF 6 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT . . , . . , BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . . ./ I.T.A NO.3407/AHD/2016 / A.Y.:2012-13 SMT. KANAKLATA RAJNATH SHUKLA, F/B-12 , SARDAR PATEL COMPLEX, NEAR SBI BANK GIDC, ANKLESHWAR PAN:BCMPS4086D VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 2(2) BHARUCH APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY SHRI K USHAL RATHI, CA /REVENUE BY SHRI VINOD KUMAR, SR. D.R. / DATE OF HEARING: 31.10.2018 /PRONOUNCEMENT ON 31.10.2018 /O R D E R PER O. P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-3 VADODARA (IN SHORT CIT(A)) DATED 01.09.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. GROUND NO. 1 & 2 RELATES TO CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF RS.16,09,194 PERTAINING PAYMENTS OF PF AND SMT. KANAKLATA RAJNATH SHUKLA V. ITO2(2)BHARUCH/I.T.A. NO.3407/AHD/2016/ A.Y. 12-13 PAGE 2 OF 6 DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,92,296 PERTAINING TO ESI PAID BEYOND THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE RELEVANT STATUTES. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENT OF HON`BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [2014] 366 ITR 170 (GUJ) : 223 TAXMAN 398 : [2014] 41 TAXMANN.COM 100 (2014) (1) TML 502 -GUJ-HC. THE APPEAL FILED BY GSRTC IS PRESENTLY PENDING FOR ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE HON`BLE SUPREME COURT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE RECENT DECISION OF HON`BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT V. RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGE CORPORATION LTD. 84 TAXMANN.COM 173 (RAJ.) WHEREIN DELAYED PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF IS ALLOWED SINCE THE SAME IS PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. THE SLP FILED AGAINST THIS DECISION BY THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HON`BLE SUPREME COURT IN PR. CIT V. RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGE CORPORATION LTD. [2017] 84 SMT. KANAKLATA RAJNATH SHUKLA V. ITO2(2)BHARUCH/I.T.A. NO.3407/AHD/2016/ A.Y. 12-13 PAGE 3 OF 6 TAXMANN.COM 185 (SC). THEREFORE, IT WAS CONTENDED THE ISSUE MAY BE DECIDE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AU CONTRAIRE , THE LD. DR, SUBMITS THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, 366 ITR 170 (GUJ.), WHEREIN IT IS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT IN THE CASE OF DELAYED DEPOSIT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF, THE SAME WILL NOT BE DEDUCTIBLE IN COMPUTING INCOME UNDER SECTION 28 OF THE ACT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [2014] 366 ITR 170 (GUJ) : 223 TAXMAN 398 : [2014] 41 TAXMANN.COM 100 (2014) (1) TML 502 -GUJ- HC, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SECTION 43B DOES NOT APPLY TO EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION. ONLY SECTION 2 (24) (X) READ WITH SECTION 36(1)(VA) IS APPLICABLE AND THEREFORE, EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION IS DISALLOWED IF NOT PAID SMT. KANAKLATA RAJNATH SHUKLA V. ITO2(2)BHARUCH/I.T.A. NO.3407/AHD/2016/ A.Y. 12-13 PAGE 4 OF 6 WITHIN DUE DATES PRESCRIBED UNDER RELEVANT PROVIDENT FUND /ESI ACT. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE IN THE LIGHT OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE CASE (SUPRA). THE LAW SO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS BINDING ON US. THE MERE FACT THAT AN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID DECISION IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT DILUTE THE BINDING NATURE OF THIS JUDICIAL PRECEDENT. 6. AS REGARD DISMISSAL OF SLP IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT V. RAJASTHAN STATE BEVERAGES CORPORATION LTD [2017] 84 TAXMANN.COM 185 (SC) (SUPRA), IT IS ONLY ELEMENTARY THAT WHEN A SLP IS DISMISSED BY A NON-SPEAKING ORDER, IT DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A LAW DECLARED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT, AND AS SUCH, IT IS NOT BINDING UNDER ARTICLE 141 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. THE HON`BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S. SHANMUGAVEL NADAR VS. STATE OF TAMILNADU [2003]; 263 ITR 658 (SC) HELD THAT A SUMMARY DISMISSAL BY THE SUPREME COURT WITHOUT LAYING DOWN ANY LAW IS NOT A DECLARATION OF LAW SMT. KANAKLATA RAJNATH SHUKLA V. ITO2(2)BHARUCH/I.T.A. NO.3407/AHD/2016/ A.Y. 12-13 PAGE 5 OF 6 AS ENVISAGED IN ARTICLE 141 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. FOR DECLARATION OF LAW, THERE SHOULD BE A SPEAKING ORDER. A DECISION WHICH IS NOT EXPRESS AND IS NOT FORMULATED ON REASONS NOR ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE ISSUE CAN NOT BE DEEMED TO BE A LAW DECLARED SO AS TO HAVE BINDING EFFECT UNDER ARTICLE 141 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION AND IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS PRINCIPLE, IT WAS LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KM JAGANNATHAN 180 ITR 191 (MAD) THAT DISMISSAL OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BY THE SUPREME COURT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS AFFIRMATION OF THE DECISION AGAINST WHICH SPECIAL LEAVE WAS SOUGHT. IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN TEA TRADING COMPANY LTD. VS. CIT 263 ITR 289, 294 (CAL), IT WAS REITERATED THAT A DECISION BECOMES BINDING AS A PRECEDENT ONLY WHEN THE COURT DECIDES A PARTICULAR QUESTION OF LAW OR LAYS DOWN THE RATIO THROUGH A CONSCIOUS ADJUDICATION. AGREEMENT WITH THE FINDING OF FACT BY THE LOWER COURT WITHOUT ADVERTING TO THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE FINDING DOES NOT CREATE A PRECEDENT. THE AUTHORITY, FOR THIS PROPOSITION, IS CONTAINED IN A SERIES OF JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT, INCLUDING, INTER ALIA, IN THE SMT. KANAKLATA RAJNATH SHUKLA V. ITO2(2)BHARUCH/I.T.A. NO.3407/AHD/2016/ A.Y. 12-13 PAGE 6 OF 6 CASES OF STATE OF MANIPUR VS. THINGUJAM BROJEN MEETAI, (1996) 9 SCC 29; OM PRAKASH GARGI V. STATE OF PUNJAB, (1996) 11 SCC 399 AND SUN EXPORT CORPORATION V. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, AIR 1997 SC 2658. 7. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT, IS THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 9. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.10.2018. SD/- SD/- (C.M. GARG) (O.P.MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SURAT: DATED: 31 OCTOBER, 2018/OPM COPY OF ORDER SENT TO- ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/GUARD FILE OF ITAT. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SURAT