IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD SMC - A BENCH : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA.NO. 895/HYD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 2013 SRI HANUMANTHA RAO SINGAMSETTY, C/O. DATA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, 15/193, SESHASAI TOWERS, RR STREET, NELLORE 524001, ANDHRA PRADESH. PAN: AOMPS2524K VS. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE: SRI LAKSH M I PAVAN FOR REVENUE : SRI M. SEETHA RAMA RAO DATE OF HEARING : 09 .10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 .10.2017 ORDER PER D. MANMOHAN, VP. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). TIRUPATI AND IT PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 2013. 2. ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (IT) BUSINESS. IT DECLARED A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 29,04,940/ - FOR A.Y. UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY WHEREIN IT WAS NOTICED THAT EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION WAS DEPOSITED BELATEDLY FOR TH E MONTHS OF JULY, OCTOBER, NOVEMBER AND DECEMBER OF 2011 AND JANUARY, FEBRUARY AND MARCH OF 2012. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT WAS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF APEX COURT WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ANY AMOUNT PAID BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN IS PERMISSIBLE AS DEDUCTION AND SECTION 43B OF THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY. A.O. REJECTED ASSESSEES CONTENTION BY FOLLOWING DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [2014] (366 ITR 170). 2 3. LD. CIT(A) HAVING UPHELD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE STANDS SQUARELY COVERED BY DECISION OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD [2009] (319 ITR 3 06) (SC) AND EVEN THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT WAS NOT FOLLOWED BY LATER DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL BY HOLDING THAT DESPITE THE DECISION OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT, HONBLE SUPREME COURT S DECISION PREVAILS. IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE RELIED UPON FOLLOWING DECISIONS: - (I) PATNI TELECOM SOLUTIONS (P.) LTD VS. ITO [2013] 23 ITR (T) 534, HYDERABAD TRIB. (II) TETRA SOFT (INDIA) (P) LTD VS. ACIT [2015] 40 ITR (T) 470, HYDERABAD TRIB. (III) NUZIVEDU SWATI COASTAL CONSORTIUM VS. ITO [2015] 62 TAXMANN.CO M 258, HYDERABAD TRIB. (IV) LOGIX MICROSYSTEMS LTD VS. DCIT [2017] 80 TAXMANN.COM 39, BANGALORE TRIB. (V) DCIT VS. EASTERN POWER DISTRIBUTION COMPANY OF AP LTD [2016] 160 ITD 432, VISAKHAPATNAM TRIB. (VI) SAGUN FOUNDRY (P) LTD. VS. ACIT [2017] (291 CTR 557) ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT AND (VII) ESSAE TERAOKA (P.) LTD VS. DCIT [2014] (366 ITR 408) KARNATAKA HIGH COURT. 5. TO SUBMIT THAT WHEN THERE ARE TWO VIEWS POSSIBLE THE ONE WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ADOPTED, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. VEGETABLES PRODUCTS (88 ITR 192) AND DECISIONS OF OTHER HIGH COURTS HOLDING A SIMILAR VIEW. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE TAX AUTH ORITIES. 7. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED RECORD. CONSISTENT WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ITAT IN NUMBER OF CASES (SUPRA), I HOLD THAT DISALLOWANCE BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW SINCE THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF AMOUNT BEFORE THE PERIOD FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED ACCORDINGLY IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH OCTOBER, 2017. S D / - (D. MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT HYDERABAD, DATED: 09 TH OCTOBER, 2017 3 OKK, SR.PS COPY TO 1. SRI HANUMANTHA RAO SINGAMSETTY, C/O DATA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, 15/193, SESHASAI TOWERS, RR STREET, NELLORE 524001, ANDHRA PRADESH. 2. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, NELLORE, ANDHRA PRADESH. 3. CIT (A), TIRUPATI. 4. PR. CIT , TIRUPATI. 5. D.R. ITAT A - SMC BENCH, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE