2022 (1) TMI 1146

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... officer of CPC Bangalore. 2. Brief facts of the case as culled out from the records are that the assessee is individual engaged in the business of manufacturing and processing of plastic packaging goods. E-return of income filed on 05.10.2018 declaring income of Rs. 13,74,370/-. The case of the assessee was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act by the Central Processing Centre vide order dated 21.05.2019 income was assessed at Rs. 17,30,310/- after making disallowance of Rs. 3,55,935/- for delay for payment of Provident Fund and ESIC for the contribution by employer and employee. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) but partly succeeded. 4. Now the revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal raising following gr....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....is disallowance constitutes two amounts of which Res.1,54,463/- is towards sum received from employees on account of PF/ESIC contribution and remaining amount of Rs. 2,01,472/- the employers contribution. On perusal of the records and details filed it remains uncontroverted fact with the total alleged sum has been deposited with the concerned authority before due date of filing of return of income. This disallowance was made for delay in depositing the said sum before the due date as prescribed by the authorities regulating PF/ESIC. Though the provisions of section 36(1)(va) refers to the sum received by the assessee from employees towards PF/ESIC but the CPC has made the disallowance for sum contributed by employer also which is not justif....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....concerned, the Court has extensively considered the aforesaid two questions in assessee's own case vide judgement and order dated 26.5.2016 referred to (supra) and has held that the privilege fees being a revenue expenditure, is required to be allowed as a revenue expendit11re. This court in the aforesaid case has also allowed the claim of the assessee, in so far as payment of PF & ESI etc. is concerned, on the finding of fact that the amounts in question were deposited on or before the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgement of this Court in Commissioner o/Income Tax v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitaran Nig,lII!1 Ltd (2011) 363 ITR 70 (Raj....