Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(4), Hyderabad V. Sumathi Corporate Services Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 757/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2158 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 43B; 201; 139(1); 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH : HYDERABAD (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 757 /HYD./20 18 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 201 4 - 15 ITO, WARD 3(4) VS. M/S SUMATHI CORPORATE SERVICES PVT. LTD. HYDERABAD HYDERABAD [PAN: AAKCS8202M ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR DEPARTMENT : SRI ROHIT MUJUMDAR, D.R. FOR APPELLANT : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 15 /0 6 /2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 /06/2021 O R D E R PER S.S. GODARA, J.M. THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 201 4 - 15 ARISES AGAINST THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [CIT(A)] - 3 , HYDERABADS ORDER DATED 13.02.2018 PASSED IN CASE NO. 0742 /201 6 - 17 IN PROCEEDINGS U/S 14 3(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [IN SHORT THE ACT]. NONE APPEARED AT ASSESSEES BEHEST. HEARD SRI ROHIT MUJUMDAR, LEARNED DR REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT . CASE FILE PERUSED. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S 2 ( 24)(X) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,58,66,342/ - . ITA 757 /HYD/18 AY: 201 4 - 15 ITO VS M/S SUMATHI CORPORATE SERVICES PVT. LTD. 2 3 . THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SE T ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2. COMING TO THE SOLE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE OF ESI/PF DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,58,66,342/ - , THE ASSESSEES AND REVENUES PLEA THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING SEC. 139(1) RETURN AND AFTER THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED IN THE CORRESPONDING STATUTES; RESPECTIVELY. WE NOTICE IN THIS FACTUAL BACKDROP THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS NOT ONLY INCORPORATED NECESSARY AMEN DMENTS IN SECTIONS 36(VA) AS WELL AS 43B VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2021 TO THIS EFFECT BUT ALSO THE CBDT HAS ISSUED MEMORANDUM OF EXPLANATION THAT THE SAME APPLIES W.E.F. 1.4.2021 ONLY. IT IS FURTHER NOT AN ISSUE THAT THE FOREGOING LEGISLATIVE AMENDMENTS HAV E PROPOSED EMPLOYER S CONTRIBUTION; DISALLOWANCE U/S 43B AS AGAINST EMPLOYEE S CONTRIBUTION U/S 36 (VA) OF THE ACT; RESPECTIVELY. HOWEVER, KEEPING IN MIND THE FACT THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN CLARIFIED TO BE APPLICABLE ONLY WITH PROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1. 4.2021, WE HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN VIEW OF ALL THESE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS EVEN IF THE REVENUES CASE IS SUPPORTED BY THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS. (I) CIT VS. MERCHEM LTD, [2015] 378 ITR 443(KER) ; (II) CIT VS. GUJARAT STATE RO AD TRANSPORT CORPORATION (2014) 366 ITR 170 (GUJ.); (III) CIT VS. SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION LTD. (2000) 242 ITR 114 (KER); (IV.) CIT VS. GTN TEXTILES LTD. (2004) 269 ITR 282 (KER); (V) CIT VS. JAIRAM & SONS [2004] 269 ITR 285 (KER) TH IS REVENUES GROUND IS REJECTED THEREFORE AND CIT(A)S ORDER IS UPHELD. THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED IN ABOVE TERMS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 29 /06/2021. SD/ - SD/ - (L.P. SAHU) (S.S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 29 TH JUNE, 2021 *GMV ITA 757 /HYD/18 AY: 201 4 - 15 ITO VS M/S SUMATHI CORPORATE SERVICES PVT. LTD. 3 COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. ITO, WARD 3 ( 4 ), HYDERABAD 2. M/S SUMATHI CORPORATE SERVICES PVT. LTD., H.NO. 6 - 3 - 668/1/8, DURGANAGAR COLONY, PUNJAGUTTA, HYDERABAD 3. JCIT, RANGE 3 , HYDERABAD 4 CIT(A) - 3 , HYDERABAD 5 PR.CIT - 3 , HYDERABAD . 6 D.R. ITAT HYDERABAD 7 GUARD FILE