Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(2)(1), Bangalore V. M/s Bharat Silks , Bangalore

ITA 589/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4612 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PADMAMEENAKSHI J
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, B ENGALURU BEFORE S HRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I TA NO. 589 / BANG/2 0 1 8 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 ) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 7(2)(1), B ENGALURU. VS. APPELLANT M/S. BHARAT SILKS, NO.7/1, 1 ST FLOOR, K.H. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560027. PAN: AADFB 0871 B RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT. PADMAMEENAKSHI, JCIT(DR) RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING: 13/06/2018 DATE OF PRONOU NCEMENT: 15 /06/2018 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - 7 , [CIT(A PPEALS )] DATED 29/12/2017 INTER ALIA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED C1T(A) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN NOT CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(1)(VA) OF THE I. T ACT'? 3. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN CONSIDERING THAT THE CONTRIBUTION OF PF AND ESI, REMITTED BY THE EMPLOYER AFTER DUE DATE PRESCRIBED IS NOT IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B OF THE I. T. ACT'? ITA NO . 589 /BANG/20 18 PAGE 2 OF 3 4. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS NOT ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE U/ S 36(1)(VA) R.W.S. 2(24(X) WITHOUT DISTINGUISHING THE PROVISION FOR DISALLOWANCE OF EMPLOYEE AND EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION'? 5. 'THE C1T(APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW IN NOT CONSIDERING THE CIRCULAR NO. 22/2015 DATED 17 12 - 2015, ISSUED BY THE CBDT AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE C1T(A)'? 6. 'THE C1T(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE CLAIM O F DEDUCTION RELATING TO EMPLOYEE'S CONTRIBUTION AND NOT THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION TO PF & ESI'? 7. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS MAY BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED. 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND AND/OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS MENTIONED ABOVE. 3 . THIS APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 13/06/2018 BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE BY REGISTERED AD AND THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CARD IS PLACED ON RECORD. SINCE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTICE OF HEARING, WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO HEAR THE APPEAL EX - PARTE. ACCORDINGLY , THE REVENUE IS HEARD. 4 . THE LEARNED DR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF CONTRIBUTION OF PF & ESI REMITTED BY THE EMPLOYER AFTER DUE DATE PR ESCRIBED U/S 43B OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT,1961 [HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT ]. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED DR CANDIDLY ADMITTED THAT THE ISSUE I S SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SABARI EN TERPRISES (298 ITR 141) IN WHICH CASE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION DEPOSITED BY THE EMPLOYER WITH THE EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CORPORATION/PROVIDENT FUND IS ALLOWABLE THOUGH IT IS DEPOSITED BEYOND THE DUE DATE SPECIFIED UNDER THE PF A ND ESI LAWS BUT BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF INCOME - TAX RETURN FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. UNDISPUTEDLY, PAYMENTS WERE MADE BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. ITA NO . 589 /BANG/20 18 PAGE 3 OF 3 5. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), WE FIND THAT T HE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, NO INTERFERENCE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS CALLED FOR. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 6. IN THE RESUL T, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH JUNE, 2018 SD/ - SD/ - (A.K.GARODIA) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : BENGALURU. D A T E D : 15/06/2018 SRINIVASULU, SPS COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A) 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE