2019 (7) TMI 1043

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d before the Tribunal and that proceedings are pending against the assessee before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), we have not issued notice to the respondent - assessee. 2. These appeals, filed by the Revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act), are directed against the common order dated 13.12.2018 in ITA.Nos.650 & 651/Chny/2018 on the file of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'D' Bench respectively for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. 3. The Revenue has filed these appeals by raising the following substantial question of law : "Whether the Tribunal is correct in law in holding that no disallowance could be made on account of the assessee paying employee's contrib....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ned by Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the IT Act, wherein it is categorically stated that the employee's contribution should be paid into their account within the due date allowed in the respective Acts viz. ESI Act and PF Act. ........ 2.5. The learned CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that in the present case, the employee's contribution of Rs. 15,79,41,125/- towards Provident Fund (PF) and Rs. 1,32,96,164/- towards Employee State Insurance (ESI) were not credited by the assessee as an employer to the respective employee's account in the relevant funds on or before the due date under the PF Act and ESI Act as required in the Explanation to Section 36(1)(va) of the IT Act, as is evidenced from the form 3CD f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court and as such cannot be taken as law settling the issue." 6. In our considered view, there have been several other decisions rendered subsequently by other High Courts, which should be taken into consideration because any decision in this regard will have wide ramifications. 7. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s.Merchem Ltd. [reported in (2015) 378 ITR 443] held in favour of the Revenue. Similarly, another Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in the case of Popular Vehicles & Services Private Limited Vs. CIT, Ernakulam [reported in (2018) 96 Taxmann.com 13] has recently taken note of all the earlier decisions including the decisions, which have been referred ....