Rinkoo Processors Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax,Circle-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 868/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6114 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Question of law
• Section: 43B; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 868/AHD/2016 (AS SESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) RINKOO PROCESSORS LTD., 238, NR. SHAHWADI OCTROI NAKA, SAIJPUR GOPALPUR ROAD, NAROL, AHMEDABAD 382405 A PPELLANT VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 3(1) (2), AHMEDABAD RESPONDEN T PAN: AAACR7365L /BY ASSESSEE : NONE /BY REVENUE : SHRI PRASOON KABRA, SR. D.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 09.02.2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.02.2018 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ARISES AGAINST THE CIT(A)-9, AHMEDABADS ORDER DATED 13.01.2016, IN CA SE NO. CIT(A)-9/537/DCIT, CIR-3(1)(2)/14-15, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. HEARD THE REVENUE. CASE FILE PERUSED. ITA NO. 868/AHD/16 [RINKOO PROCESSORS LTD. VS. DCIT ] A.Y. 2012-13 - 2 - 2. CASE CALLED TWICE. NONE APPEARS AT ASSESSEES B EHEST. THE REGISTRYS RPAD NOTICE DATED 09.01.2018 FOR TODAYS HEARING STAND R ETURNED UNSERVED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. WE THUS PROCEED EX PARTE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT TO ADJUDICATE THE INSTANT APPEAL ON MERITS. 3. THE ASSESSEES SOLE GRIEVANCE PLEADED IN THE INS TANT APPEAL CHALLENGES CORRECTNESS OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER UPHOLDING ASSESSI NG OFFICERS ACTION DISALLOWING EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PROVIDENT FUND AND ESI O F RS.2,13,676/- AND RS.1,02,169/- IN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 09.01.2015. LOWER APPELLATE FINDINGS UNDER CHALLENGE READ AS UNDER: 5.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTI ON AS WELL AS THE OBSERVATION OF THE A.O. THE A.O AT PARA 3.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT O RDER HAS MENTIONED THAT THE AUDIT REPORT HAS POINTED OUT THE NON-PAYMENT OF CON TRIBUTION OF EMPLOYEES TOWARDS PF & ESI BY THE DUE DATE AS SPECIFIED IN RESPECT OF ACTS/LAWS, IT IS SEEN THAT RS. 1,02,169/- ON ACCOUNT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION ESI C AND RS.2,13,676/- ON ACCOUNT OF PF HAS BEEN PAID BEYOND THE DUE DATE OF PAYMENT AS PER THE RESPECTIVE ACTS/LAWS. THE APPELLANT HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE D ELAYED PAYMENTS THAT IN MOST CASES THE CONTRIBUTION IS PAID DURING THE YEAR WITH SOME DELAY/BEFORE FILING RETURN OF INCOME. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT I T HAS COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.43B OF THE ACT. THE A.O. HAS DISALLOWED RS.3 ,15,845/- U/S.36(1)(VA) OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B ARE APPLICABLE, IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYERS CONTRIBUTION AND IN THIS CONTEXT IT IS DIFFERENT FR OM THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.36(1)(VA). THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION 265 CTR 64 HAVE HELD THAT WHE THER THE EMPLOYER HAS NOT CREDITED THE SUM RECEIVED BY IT AS EMPLOYEES CONTRI BUTION TO EMPLOYEES ACCOUNT IN RELEVANT FUND ON OR BEFORE DUE DATE AS PRESCRIBED I N EXPLANATION TO SECTION 36(1 )(VA), THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCT ION OF SUCH AMOUNT THOUGH HE DEPOSITS THE SAID SUM BEFORE THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBE D U/S.43B, I.E. PRIOR TO FILING OF RETURN U/S. 139(1) OF THE L.T.ACT. SINCE IN THIS CA SE, THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS ESIC/PF WAS NOT BEFORE DUE DATE AS PRESCRIB ED IN EXPLANATION TO SECTION 36(1 )(VA), ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF RS.3,15,845/- IS CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 868/AHD/16 [RINKOO PROCESSORS LTD. VS. DCIT ] A.Y. 2012-13 - 3 - IT HAS THEREFORE COME ON RECORD THAT THE CIT(A) HA S FOLLOWED HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS ORDER IN GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION CASE (SUPRA) DECIDING THE VERY QUESTION OF LAW IN REVENU ES FAVOUR. WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE IN THIS LEGAL AND FACTUAL BACKDROP. THE ASSESSEES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY R EJECTED. 4. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS T HE 12 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018.] SD/- SD/- ( AMARJIT SINGH ) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 12/02/2018 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) ( )*+ ,--. . /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 +23 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // . /0