TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee on or before the due date applicable in his case for furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 in respect of the previous year in which the liability to pay such sum was incurred and the evidence of such payment is furnished by the assessee along with such return. In the present case, the assessee having actually paid the amount of employer's contribution before the due date for furnishing the return of income, the Tribunal was justified in deleting the disallowance made by the assessing officer under section 43B of the Act. Insofar as the employees' contribution is concerned, this court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax II v. Gujarat State Road Transport (2014 (1) TMI 502 - GUJARAT HIGH CO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r : Honourable Ms. Justice Harsha Devani ) 1. This appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) came to be admitted by an order dated 19.3.2008 on the following substantial question of law:- Whether the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order passed by the CIT (A) in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 4,54,964/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s.43B of the Act in respect of the employer and employees contribution to P.F. And E.S.I. Which were made beyond the due date? 2. The assessment year is 2003-04 and the relevant accounting period is the previous year 2002-03. The assessee, a limited company, filed return of income on 21.11.2003 showing loss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, viz., the employer's contribution is concerned, the same stands concluded in favour of the assessee by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Kolkatta-III v. Alom Extrusions Limited, (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) , whereas insofar as the controversy involved in the second part of the question, viz. Employees' contribution is concerned the same stands concluded in favour of the revenue by the decision of this court in Commissioner of Income Tax-II v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, (2014) 366 ITR 170 . 4. Despite service of notice of admission, there is no appearance on behalf of the respondent-assessee. 5. As can be seen from the order passed by the Assessing Officer, the disallow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Commissioner of Income Tax II v. Gujarat State Road Transport (supra) has held that considering section 36 (1) (va) of the Act read with sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section (2), with respect to the sum received by the assessee from any of his employees' to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section (2) apply, the assessee shall be entitled to deduction in computing the income referred to in section 28 with respect to such sum credited by the assessee to the employees' account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date mentioned in explanation to section 36 (1) (va) of the Act. The court held that the Tribunal, therefore, erred in deleting disallowances being employees' contribution to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
