Tribunal Decision: Revenue Appeal Partly Allowed, Set-Off of Losses Allowed, Disallowance for Delayed PF/ESI Deposits Upheld

The Tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeal, confirming the genuineness of commodity profit treated under Section 68 and the allowability of set-off of losses against additions made under Section 68. However, the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employees' contributions towards PF/ESI was upheld.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Genuineness of commodity profit and its treatment under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Allowability of set-off of losses against additions made under Section 68.
3. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employees' contribution towards PF/ESI.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Genuineness of Commodity Profit and its Treatment under Section 68:
The revenue contested that the Learned CIT(A) erred in law by allowing the disallowance under Section 68 of Rs. 2,30,75,391/- as income chargeable to tax under 'Income from Business or Profession' instead of treating it as Commodity Profit under Section 68 of the Act. The assessee, a Private Limited Company engaged in manufacturing TMT bars, declared a loss of Rs. 2,26,20,205/- for the Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessing Officer questioned the genuineness of the commodity profit earned through broker Sidhsilver Commodities Pvt. Ltd., citing an investigation report that suggested the broker was involved in managing benefits for Indian beneficiaries through operators. The Assessing Officer added the commodity profit as unexplained cash credit under Section 68.

The CIT(A), after detailed examination, concluded that the assessee earned genuine income in the form of commodity profit, supported by banking channels, bills, and contract notes. The CIT(A) found no discrepancies in the transactions and held that the commodity profit was genuine income. The Tribunal upheld this finding, noting that the revenue failed to provide concrete evidence to prove the commodity profit was accommodative.

2. Allowability of Set-off of Losses Against Additions Made under Section 68:
The revenue challenged the CIT(A)'s decision to allow the set-off of current year losses against the addition made under Section 68. The CIT(A) held that even if the commodity profit was treated as unexplained cash credit under Section 68, the losses incurred by the assessee during the year should be set off against the unexplained income. The CIT(A) noted that the restriction on set-off was introduced by the Finance Act, 2016, effective from 01/04/2017, and thus not applicable for the assessment year in question.

The Tribunal agreed, referencing Section 115BBE and the CBDT Circular No. 11/2019, which clarified that prior to 01/04/2017, there was no bar on setting off losses against income referred to in Section 68. The Tribunal cited various judicial pronouncements supporting the view that the assessee was entitled to claim set-off of losses against income determined under Section 115BBE before the amendment. The Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s findings and dismissed the revenue's grounds on this issue.

3. Disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) for Delayed Deposit of Employees' Contribution towards PF/ESI:
The revenue argued that the CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 7,60,123/- made by the Assessing Officer for delayed payment of employees' contribution towards PF/ESI. The CIT(A) had allowed the deduction, but the revenue cited the Supreme Court ruling in Checkmate Services (P.) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax-1, which held that strict compliance with Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) is necessary to claim the deduction, and Section 43B does not apply to employees' contributions.

The Tribunal upheld the revenue's contention, following the Supreme Court's decision, and ruled that the employees' contribution to PF/ESI, if not deposited before the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts, should be added to the income of the assessee. Thus, the Tribunal dismissed the revenue's ground on this issue.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the revenue's appeal, confirming the CIT(A)'s findings on the genuineness of the commodity profit and the allowability of set-off of losses against additions made under Section 68, while upholding the disallowance under Section 36(1)(va) for delayed deposit of employees' contributions to PF/ESI.

---