2019 (7) TMI 360 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal success on ESIC & EPF payments, but expenses disallowance upheld under Rule 8D(iii).

Devi Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1 (3), Pune

The tribunal partly allowed the appellant's appeal on the disallowance of payments for ESIC and EPF under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ... Disallowance of ESIC and EPF u/s 37(1) - allowable business expenses - assessee was not under obligation to discharge the liability under EPF and ESIC in respect of employees of sub-contractors - HELD THAT:- In the instant case though the assessee was not under contractual obligation but the assessee was severally liable for the compliances of the provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the scheme framed under the said Act. Further, the assessee as part of good corporate governance complied with the provisions of beneficial legislature qua the contract labourers who were working for the assessee. The rendering of service and payments have not been doubted by the Department. The payments were wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of assessee - assessee’s claim of such payments u/s. 37(1) of the Act deserves to be allowed. - Decided in favour of assessee Disallowance of expenditure u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D(iii) - CIT-A deleted disallowance in respect of interest expenditure, i.e. disallowance made under Rule 8D(ii) and sustained statutory disallowance of 0.5% of the average value of investments under Clause (iii) of Rule 8D - HELD THAT:- We observe that the findings of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on this issue are fair and reasonable, hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. - Decided against assessee Issues:1. Disallowance of payments for ESIC and EPF under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.2. Disallowance of expenses under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.Issue 1: Disallowance of payments for ESIC and EPF under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The appellant contested the disallowance of payments made for Employees' State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) and Employees Provident Fund (EPF) under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that these payments were made on behalf of subcontractors who failed to comply with statutory provisions. The Assessing Officer disallowed the payments, stating they were not contractual obligations. However, the appellant claimed that the payments were made for commercial expediency and were allowable under section 37 of the Act. The appellant relied on a tribunal decision supporting their stance. The tribunal, citing the Employees Provident Fund Act, 1952, ruled in favor of the appellant, emphasizing that the payments were for business purposes and, therefore, allowable under section 37(1) of the Act. The tribunal highlighted the conditions for admissible expenditure under section 37(1) and emphasized that the expenditure must be wholly and exclusively for business purposes. Ultimately, the tribunal allowed the appellant's claim for the payments made for ESIC and EPF.Issue 2: Disallowance of expenses under section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961:The appellant challenged the disallowance of expenses under section 14A read with Rule 8D(iii) amounting to a specific sum. The Assessing Officer had initially disallowed a higher amount under Rule 8D. In the first appellate proceedings, part of the disallowance was deleted, but a portion was sustained. The tribunal found the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)'s decision fair and reasonable, leading to the dismissal of the appellant's challenge on this issue. The tribunal did not interfere with the sustained disallowance under Rule 8D(iii). Consequently, the appellant's appeal on this matter was dismissed.In conclusion, the tribunal partly allowed the appellant's appeal regarding the disallowance of payments for ESIC and EPF under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, while dismissing the appeal concerning the disallowance of expenses under section 14A of the Act. The general nature of the fourth ground of appeal did not require adjudication.