ACIT, Jaipur V. RAJASTHAN STATE CO-OPERATIVE OIL SEED GROWERS FEDERATION LTD., Jaipur

ITA 615/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5578 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: P C PARWAL CA DHK
• Section: 43B; 28; 139

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U;KF; D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE:SHRI T.R. MEENA,AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 615/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE ACIT CIRCLE- 6 JAIPUR CUKE VS. M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE COOPERATIVE OIL SEED GROWERS FEDERATION LTD. NEHRU SAHKAR BHAWAN, BHAWANI SINGH ROAD,, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AAACR 8276 L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BHATEJA, ADDL. CIT -DR FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL , CA LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 18/11/2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01 /01/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER T.R. MEENA, AM THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR DATED 07-03-2013 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEARS 2008-09 RAISING THEREIN GROUNDS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN:- (I) DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 6,14,017/- MADE BY AO BY WAY OF DISALLOWANCE OF LATE DEPOSITION OF EMPLOYEE S PF CONTRIBUTION. ITA NO. 615//JP/2013 ACIT, CIRCLE- 6, JAIPUR VS. M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE CO OPERATIVE OIL SEED GROWERS FEDERATION LTD. ,. JAIP UR . 2 (II) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,18,000/- MADE B Y AO BY WAY OF DISALLOWANCE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. 2.1 THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE IS REGARDING DE LETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 6,14,017/- MADE BY THE AO BY WAY OF DISALLOW ANCE OF LATE DEPOSITION OF EMPLOYEES PF CONTRIBUTION WHEREIN BR IEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS PER AO ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEPOSIT T HE AMOUNT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF IN CERTAIN MONTH WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 6,14,017/- U/S 36(1)(VA) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2.2 THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF L ATE DEPOSITION OF EMPLOYEES PF CONTRIBUTION BY CONSIDERING THE DECI SION OF COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. AMIT BASU (ITA NO. 76 5/JP/2011 DATED 25-01-2012). 2.3 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 2.4 TO THIS EFFECT, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELI ED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. AMIT BASU (SUPRA) BESIDES DECISIONS OF HON'BLE JURISDICT IONAL HIGH COURT AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 615//JP/2013 ACIT, CIRCLE- 6, JAIPUR VS. M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE CO OPERATIVE OIL SEED GROWERS FEDERATION LTD. ,. JAIP UR . 3 (I) CIT VS. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR (2014) 3 63 ITR 70 (RAJ.) (II) CIT VS. JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. (2014) 363 ITR 307 (RAJ.) (III) CIT VS. UDAPUR DUGDH UTPADAK SAHAKARI SANGH L TD. (2014) 366 ITR 163 (RAJ.) THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR DISMISSING TH IS GROUND OF THE REVENUE 2.5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE PAYMEN T OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF IS MADE PRIOR TO THE FILING OF T HE RETURN. THE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IS CONSISTENTLY HOLDING THAT IF THE PA YMENT IS MADE PRIOR TO THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN, NO DISALLOWANCE W ILL BE MADE. IN SUCH CASES, THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. AMIT BASU (SUPRA) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVIN G AS UNDER:-. 3.4 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. BEFORE AMENDM ENT U/S 43B OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2003, THERE WERE TWO PROVIS OS TO SECTION 43B OF THE ACT ' PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION S HALL APPLY IN RELATION TO ANY SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (C) OR CLAUSE (D) OR CLAUSE (E) OR CLAUSE (F), WHICH IS ACTUALLY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN HIS CASE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB\X7F SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 IN RESPECT OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE LIABILITY TO PAY SUCH SUM WAS INCURRED AS AFORESAID AND THE EVIDENCE OF SUCH PAYMENT IS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH SUCH RETURN : ITA NO. 615//JP/2013 ACIT, CIRCLE- 6, JAIPUR VS. M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE CO OPERATIVE OIL SEED GROWERS FEDERATION LTD. ,. JAIP UR . 4 PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL, IN RESPEC T OF ANY SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B), BE ALLOWED UNLESS SUCH SUM HAS AC TUALLY BEEN PAID IN CASH OR BY ISSUE OF A CHEQUE OR DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE AS DEFINED IN THE EXPLANATION BELOW CLAUSE (VA) OF SUB -SECTION (1) OF SECTION 36, AND WHERE SUCH PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE OTHERWISE THAN IN CASH, THE SUM HAS BEEN REALISED WITHIN FIFTEEN DAYS FROM THE DUE DATE .' 3.5 THE EMPLOYERS MADE A REPRESENTATION TO THE GOVT . THAT CONTRIBUTION TO WELFARE FUND IS NOT ALLOWABLE IN CASE THE SAME IS P AID AFTER DUE DATE UNDER THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND EVEN IF THE SAME IS PAID B EFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. BY FINANCE ACT, 2003, SECOND PROVISO WAS OMITTED AND THE FIRST PROVISO WAS ALSO AMENDED. THE FIRST PROVISO AFTER AMENDMENT READS AS UNDER:- ' PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SECTION S HALL APPLY IN RELATION TO ANY SUM WHICH IS ACTUALLY PAID BY THE A SSESSEE ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN HIS CASE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB\X7F SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 IN RESPECT OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE LIABILITY TO PAY SUCH SUM WAS INCURRED AS AFORESAID AND THE EVIDENCE OF SUCH PAYMENT IS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESS EE ALONG WITH SUCH RETURN.' 3.6 THE HONB'LE APEX COURT IN THE OF ALOM EXTURSIO N LTD. 319 ITR 306 HAS CONSIDERED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(24) (X) AS WELL AS 36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT. THE HONB'LE APEX COURT NOTICED THAT ON THE BAS IS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B BEFORE INSERTION OF SECOND PROVISO, IT WAS CLEA R THAT EMPLOYERS WERE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION ONLY IF THE CONTRIBUTION STANDS CREDITED ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE GIVEN IN THE PF ACT. THE SECOND PROVISO CREATED FURTHER DIFFICUL TIES AND THEREFORE, SECOND PROVISO WAS OMITTED AND FIRST PROVISO WAS AMENDED. BEFORE H ONB'LE APEX COURT, THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT THE PARLIAMENT HAS MAINTAINED A CLEA R DICHOTOMY BETWEEN PAYMENT OF TAX, DUTY, CESS OR FEE ON ONE HAND AND PAYMENT OF C ONTRIBUTIONS TO THE WELFARE FUNDS ON THE OTHER. SUCH DISTINCTION WAS CONSCIOUSLY KEPT UPTO APRIL, 2004. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE AMENDMENT MADE BY FINANCE ACT 203 C ANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS CURATIVE. THIS APPROACH OF THE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT A CCEPTED. SECTION 43B WAS INTRODUCED WITH THE OBJECT TO DISALLOW DEDUCTION CL AIMED MERELY BY MAKING A BOOK ENTRY BASED ON MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. SEC TION 43B MADE IT MANDATORY FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO GRANT DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING THE INCOME U/S 28 IN THE YEAR IN WHICH TAX, DUTY, CESS ETC. IS ACTUALLY PAID. THE PA RLIAMENT TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE FACT THAT THE ACCOUNTING YEAR OF THE COMPANY DID NOT ALW AYS TALLY WITH THE DUE DATES UNDER THE PF ACT, MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT AND OTHER TA X LAWS. HENCE BY WAY OF FIRST PROVISO BEFORE FINANCE ACT 2003, AN INCENTIVE / REL AXATION WAS SOUGHT TO BE GIVEN IN RESPECT OF TAX, DUTY, CESS OR FEE BY EXPLICITLY STA TING THAT IF SUCH TAX, DUTY, CESS OR FEE IS PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN. IT DID NOT APPLY TO CONTRIBUTIONS TO LABOUR WELFARE FUNDS. THE REASONS APPEARS TO BE THA T THE EMPLOYER(S) SHOULD NOT SIT ON THE COLLECTED CONTRIBUTIONS AND DEPRIVE THE WORKMEN OF THE RIGHTFUL BENEFITS UNDER SOCIAL WELFARE LEGISLATIONS BY DELAYING THE PAYMENT OF CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE WELFARE FUNDS. THE SECOND PROVISO RESULTED IN IMPLEMENTATIO N PROBLEMS AND THEREFORE, THE SECOND PROVISO WAS OMITTED AND THE UNIFORMITY WAS G IVEN IN THE FIRST PROVISO BY ITA NO. 615//JP/2013 ACIT, CIRCLE- 6, JAIPUR VS. M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE CO OPERATIVE OIL SEED GROWERS FEDERATION LTD. ,. JAIP UR . 5 EQUATING TAX, DUTY CESS AND FEE WITH CONTRIBUTIONS TO WELFARE FUNDS. THUS THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE ASPECT OF EXPLANATION TO SECTION 36(1)(VA) IN RESPECT OF DUE DATE. THE HON'BLE APEX COURT APPROVED THE D ECISION OF THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SABRI ENTERPRISES, 298 ITR 141 AND IT ALSO AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF HON'BLE CALCUTTA HI GH COURT. THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PAMWI TISSUES LTD. , 313 ITR 13 WAS REVERSED. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF CIT VS. AIMIL LTD. , 321 ITR 508 HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER AS TO WHETH ER THE TRIBUNAL WAS CORRECT IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION RELATING TO THE EMPLOY EES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF AND ESI MADE BY THE AO U/S 36(1)(V) OF THE ACT. THE HON 'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS MENTIONED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN CONTRARY VIEW AND UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. BEFORE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AIMIL LTD. (SUPRA) , THE COUNSEL OF THE REVENUE SUBMITTED AS UNDER. WE A RE REPRODUCING THE SUBMISSIONS BECAUSE THE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE US ARE THE SAME WHIC H HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT. 11. MS. PREM LATA BANSAL, LD COUNSEL FOR THE REVE NUE. THUS ARGUED THAT THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 43B, AS IT STOOD AT THE RELEVANT TIME, CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ANY SUM REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED UNLE SS SUCH SUM HAS ACTUALLY BEEN PAID IN CASH OR BY ISSUANCE OF CHEQUE OR DRAFT OR BY ANY MODE ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE, AS DEFINED IN THE E XPLANATION BELOW CLAUSE (VA) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 36. THUS, THE ASSESSEE WOULD EARN THE ENTITLEMENT ONLY IF THE ACTUAL CLAUSE (VA) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 36 OF THE ACT. AS PER THE SAID EXPLANATION DUE DATE MEANS THE DATE BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED, AS AN E MPLOYER, TO CREDIT THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO THE EMPLOYEES ACCOUN T IN THE RELEVANT FUND UNDER ANY ACT, RULES, ORDER OR NOTIFICATION IS SUED THEREUNDER OR UNDER ANY STANDING ORDER AWARD CONTRACT OF SERVICE OR OTHERWISE. 3.7 THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED TH E ISSUE AFTER CONSIDERING SECTION 36(1)(VA) AND SECTION 2(24)(X) OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS N OT ACCEPTABLE IN VIEW OF REJECTION OF SLP OF THE REVENUE BY HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VINAY CEMENT LTD. , 313 ITR 1. SECTION 36(1)(VA) REQUIRES THAT T HE SUM SHOULD BE CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EMPLOYEES ACCOUNT. IT NOWHERE MENTI ONED THAT THE SUM SHOULD BE PAID. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE WORD CREDITED AND PAID. THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 43B BEFORE AMENDMENT BY FINANCE ACT 2003 RE QUIRED THAT THE ASSESSEES SUM IS TO BE PAID BEFORE DUE DATE. HENCE, WHEN SECOND P ROVISO STANDS OMITTED THEN THE REQUIREMENT OF PAYMENT IS NOT RELATED TO THE DUE DA TE BUT RELATES TO DATE OF FILING OF RETURN AS PER THE AMENDED FIRST PROVISO TO SC 43B B Y FINANCE ACT, 2003. WE THEREFORE, ARE NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE RE VENUE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION OF RS. 58,106/- IN RESPECT OF THE DEPOSIT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION. THE REVENUE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. GANDHAR OIL RE FINERY (I) LTD., 104 TTJ 630 WHICH IS DATED 23-03-2006. THE ITAT COCHIN BENCH IN THE CASE OF HARRISON MALAYALAM LTD. VS. ACIT 32 SOT 497 HELD THAT PAYMEN T OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF AND LABOUR WELFARE FUND MADE BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN IS TO BE ALLOWED. THE ITAT DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. JINDAL SAW PIPES LTD. 118 ITA NO. 615//JP/2013 ACIT, CIRCLE- 6, JAIPUR VS. M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE CO OPERATIVE OIL SEED GROWERS FEDERATION LTD. ,. JAIP UR . 6 TTJ 228 HAS ALSO HELD THAT EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION T O PF AFTER DUE DATE BUT BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. 3.8 THE ITAT JAIPUR TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 0 4-11-2011 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 3.2 THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF ITO VS INSTRUMENTATION LTD., KOTA (ITA NO. 331/J P/ 2011 DATED 05- 08-2011). IT WILL BE USEFUL TO REPRODUCE PARA 4.2 A ND 4.3 OF THAT DECISION. 4.2 THE ABOVE REFERRED ISSUE STANDS DECIDED AGAIN ST THE REVENUE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SOMA BLO CK PRINTS (P) LTD. IN ITA NO.1173/JP/2010 DATED 28 TH APRIL, 2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. IT WILL BE USEFUL TO REPRO DUCE THE PARA 5.2 FROM THE ABOVE DECISION. 5.2 THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. SWASTIK METAL CASTING VS. ACIT (ITA NO.964/JP/2010) VIDE ORDER D ATED 20-04-2011. IT WILL BE USEFUL TO REPRODUCE PARA 3.2 AND 3.3 OF THE ABOVE REFERRED ORDER 3.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF AND ESI IS NOT TO BE ALLOWED AS THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PAID WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME AS PRO VIDED IN RESPECTIVE ACT OF PF AND ESI. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIR MED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 3.3 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ALOM EXTRUSIONS LT D., 319 ITR 306 HAS HELD THAT THE PROVISO INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2003 IS CURATIVE IN NATURE AND IS RETROSPECTIVE. HOWEVER, WE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08. THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS REFERRED TO THE EXPL ANATION GIVEN IN SECTION 36(1)(V)(A) OF THE ACT. THE ISSUE OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION COVERED U/S 43B HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS SABRI ENTERPRISES, 298 ITR 141. THE HON'B LE APEX COURT HAS UPHELD THE DECISION OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SABRI ENTERPRISES (SUPR A) WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ALOM EXTR USIONS LTD. (SUPRA). THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS DISMISSED THE SLP IN THE CASE OF CIT VS VINAY CEMENT 313 ITR 1 (ST.). WHILE DISMISSING THE SLP, THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS REFE RRED TO DECISION OF HON'BLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT ITA NO. 615//JP/2013 ACIT, CIRCLE- 6, JAIPUR VS. M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE CO OPERATIVE OIL SEED GROWERS FEDERATION LTD. ,. JAIP UR . 7 VS GEORGE WILLIAMSON (ASSAM) LTD., 284 ITR 619. IN THE CASE BEFORE HON'BLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, THE ISSUE W AS IN RESPECT OF CONTRIBUTION OF PF AND ESI RELATING TO E MPLOYEES SHARES. IT IS NOTICED FROM THE AUDIT REPORT THAT AL L THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILI NG OF RETURN AND THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN NOT DELETING THE SUM OF RS. 150,294/-. THE SAME IS DELE TED. THUS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. 4.3 MOREOVER, THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT VS. AIMIL LTD. ,321 ITR 508 HAS HELD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYERS P.F. CONTRIBUTION AND EMPLOYEES P.F. CONTRIBUTION IN CAS E SUCH CONTRIBUTIONS ARE PAID BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING. I T IS NOT IN DISPUTE BEFORE US THAT THE CONTRIBUTIONS HAVE NOT B EEN PAID BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN. WE THEREFO RE, HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE EMPLOY ERS P.F. CONTRIBUTION AND EMPLOYEES P.F. CONTRIBUTION. 3.9 LOOKING TO THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE HOLD THAT T HE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 58,10 6/-. THUS IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND ALSO THE LEGAL POSITION, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS SUSTAINED ON THIS ISSUE. THUS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 3.1 THE GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUE IS REGARDING DE LETION OF ADDITION OF RS.9 ,18,000/- MADE BY THE AO BY WAY OF DISALLOW ANCE OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES WHEREIN THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY AND STATE GOVT. UNDERTAKING AND IT IS ENGAG ED IN TRADING OF OIL SEEDS AND MANUFACTURING OF EDIBLE OIL. IT HAS ITS U NITS SPREAD OVER AT ITA NO. 615//JP/2013 ACIT, CIRCLE- 6, JAIPUR VS. M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE CO OPERATIVE OIL SEED GROWERS FEDERATION LTD. ,. JAIP UR . 8 VARIOUS PLACES IN THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN. THE AO OB SERVED THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES OF RS. 9.18 LACS DURI NG THE YEAR IN WHICH THE AO FOUND THAT THESE EXPENSES ARE NOT RELATING T O THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THUS IT IS NOT ALLOWABLE. ACCORDI NGLY, THE AO MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 9.18 LACS. 3.2 THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 9.18 LACS MADE BY T HE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR . IT IS SEEN T HAT IN THE CASE OF THE GOVT. ORGANIZATION, EXPENSES ARE BOOKED ONLY AFTER APPROVAL OF VARIOUS AUTHORITIES. SINCE THE AP PROVALS ARE RECEIVED DURING THIS YEAR, THE EXPENSES ARE CUR RENT YEAR EXPENSES. HON'BLE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IS ALSO REGULA RLY ALLOWING SUCH CLAIM AS HELD IN THE VARIOUS CASES RE FERRED BY THE A.R. SUPRA. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS AND RES PECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT, THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 9,18,000/- MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED. 3.3 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 3.4 TO THIS EFFECT, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELI ED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BESIDES FOLLOWING CASE LAWS. (I) CIT VS. EXCEL INDUSTRIES LTD. , 358 ITR 295 ( SC) (II) SAURASHTRA CEMENT & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. CIT 213 ITR 523 (GUJ. ITA NO. 615//JP/2013 ACIT, CIRCLE- 6, JAIPUR VS. M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE CO OPERATIVE OIL SEED GROWERS FEDERATION LTD. ,. JAIP UR . 9 (III) RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INV. CORPORATION LTD. VS. ACIT (ITA NO. 66 & 354/JP /08 DATED 30-09-2008 FOR A.Y. 2004-05 AND ITA NO. 138& 235/JP /09 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 DATED 8-01-2010) THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR DISMISSING TH IS GROUND OF THE REVENUE 3.5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT EMERGES FROM THE RECORD THA T GOVT. ORGANIZATION EXPENSES ARE BOOKED ONLY AFTER APPROVAL OF VARIOUS AUTHORITIES. SINCE THE APPROVALS ARE RECEIVED DURING THIS YEAR, THE EXPENS ES ARE CURRENT YEAR EXPENSES. THE JAIPUR BENCH IS ALSO REGULARLY ALLOWI NG SUCH CLAIMS AS HELD IN VARIOUS CASES REFERRED BY THE LD. AR IN LD. CIT( A)S ORDER. THIS COORDINATE BENCH HAS ALSO ALLOWED PRIOR PERIOD EXPE NSES IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS CORPORATION LTD . VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 20-11-2015 IN ITA NO. 25/JP/2014 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2007- 08. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF JAIPUR COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE SEEDS COR PORATION LTD. (SUPRA), WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS SUSTAINED ON THIS ISSUE. THUS GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ITA NO. 615//JP/2013 ACIT, CIRCLE- 6, JAIPUR VS. M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE CO OPERATIVE OIL SEED GROWERS FEDERATION LTD. ,. JAIP UR . 10 4.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 /01/201 6. SD/- SD/- (LALIET KUMAR) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 01 /01/ 2016 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 6, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- M/S. RAJASTHAN STATE COOPERATIVE O IL SEED GROWERS FEDERATION LTD. , JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY ) @ CIT(A), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, JAIPUR 4. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 5. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.615/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR