2022 (5) TMI 36

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....al:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 8,54,455/- u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act without applying sec. 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act 1961 as per details stated below: Section 43B read with section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act 1961-Business disallowance - certain deduction to be allowed only on actual payment (PF and ESI contribution) - High Court by impugned order held that amount claimed on payment of PF and ESI having been deposited on or before due date of filling of returns same could not be disallowed under section 43B or under section 36(1)(va) whether SLP against said impugned order was ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....adjournment is hereby rejected. 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed its return of income on 30-11-2012 declaring total income of Rs. 2,00,69,580/-. In the assessment proceedings, the ld. A.O. completed the assessment on 08-12-2017 after making addition of Rs. 8,54,455/- on account of late payment of PF contribution of employees in view of jurisdictional Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Gujarat State Road Transportation Corporation (2014) 4 taxman.com 100. The ld. A.O. while passing the order held as under:- "As discussed in earlier Para's the assessee has made late payments of ESIC/PF payment of Rs. 8,54,455/- u/s. 36(1)(va) read with sub-clause (x) of clause 24 of section 2 of Income Tax ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ited within the time is undisputed. Ld. AR has tried to convince the applicability of judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rajasthan State Beverage Corporation Ltd.[2017] 84 taxman.com 185(SC) stating that no disallowance can be made u/s. 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24) of the Act because entire contribution was deposited before filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act. I have reminded the Ld. AR that the said order dealt with Sec 43B of the Act and not Sec 36(1)(va) of the Act. Both sections are different for the purpose of implementation. While dismissing revenue appeal filed against the order of Rajasthan High Court, the Hon'ble SC has not discussed applicability of Section 36(1)(va) r.w.s 2(24)(x) of the Act. Hence, orde....