Tribunal Upholds CIT(A)'s Decision on Revenue's Appeal, Rejects Additions by AO

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the additions made by the AO. The first issue regarding the disallowance of late deposition of employee's PF contribution was resolved in favor of the assessee, citing various judgments and statutory provisions. The second issue concerning the disallowance of prior period expenses claimed by the cooperative society and State Govt. undertaking was also decided in favor of the assessee, considering the approvals received during the current year. The Tribunal found no errors in the CIT(A)'s orders and ruled against the Revenue on both grounds.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Deletion of addition of Rs. 6,14,017/- made by AO by way of disallowance of late deposition of employee's PF Contribution.
2. Deletion of addition of Rs. 9,18,000/- made by AO by way of disallowance of prior period expenses.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Deletion of addition of Rs. 6,14,017/- made by AO by way of disallowance of late deposition of employee's PF Contribution

The Revenue appealed against the deletion of the addition of Rs. 6,14,017/- made by the AO due to the late deposition of employee's PF contribution. The AO disallowed the amount under Section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act, as the assessee failed to deposit the PF contributions within the prescribed time limit.

The assessee appealed before the CIT(A), who deleted the addition, referencing the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of DCIT vs. Amit Basu. The CIT(A) held that if the payment of employee's contribution to PF is made before the due date of filing the return, no disallowance should be made.

During the hearing, the DR relied on the AO's order, while the AR of the assessee supported the CIT(A)'s decision, citing various judgments including CIT vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., and CIT vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Ltd.

The Tribunal observed that the ITAT Jaipur Bench consistently held that if the payment is made before the due date of filing the return, no disallowance will be made. The Tribunal referenced the Hon'ble Apex Court's decision in Alom Extrusion Ltd., which considered the provisions of Section 2(24)(x) and Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. The Apex Court noted that the second proviso to Section 43B was omitted to address the difficulties faced by employers, and the first proviso was amended to allow deductions if the payment is made before the due date of filing the return.

The Tribunal also noted that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. held that no disallowance can be made if contributions are paid before the due date of filing the return. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed Ground No. 1 of the Revenue.

Issue 2: Deletion of addition of Rs. 9,18,000/- made by AO by way of disallowance of prior period expenses

The Revenue also appealed against the deletion of the addition of Rs. 9,18,000/- made by the AO due to the disallowance of prior period expenses. The AO observed that the assessee, a cooperative society and State Govt. undertaking, claimed prior period expenses that did not relate to the year under consideration.

The assessee appealed before the CIT(A), who deleted the disallowance, noting that in the case of government organizations, expenses are booked only after approval from various authorities, and since approvals were received during the current year, the expenses were considered current year expenses. The CIT(A) referenced decisions of the ITAT Jaipur Bench in similar cases.

During the hearing, the DR relied on the AO's order, while the AR of the assessee supported the CIT(A)'s decision, citing case laws including CIT vs. Excel Industries Ltd., Saurashtra Cement & Chemical Industries Ltd. vs. CIT, and Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Inv. Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT.

The Tribunal observed that government organization expenses are booked only after approval from various authorities, and since approvals were received during the current year, the expenses were considered current year expenses. The Tribunal referenced the decision in ACIT vs. M/s. Rajasthan State Seeds Corporation Ltd., which allowed prior period expenses under similar circumstances.

The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)'s order and dismissed Ground No. 2 of the Revenue.

Conclusion:

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue was dismissed, and the order was pronounced in the open court on 1/01/2016.

---