TMI Blog2018 (8) TMI 1184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tance of the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)- Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad [CIT(A) in short] vide appeal no.CIT(A)/GNR/32/2015-16 dated 09.03.2017 arising in the matter of assessment order passed under s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) dated 27.02.2015 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- 1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ESI Contribution of ₹ 1,26,054/- and PF Contribution of ₹ 1,77,953/- under section 36(1)(va) in as much as it is allowable as deduction u/s 43B since it is actually paid before the end of financial year except ₹ 32,413/- of ESI Contribution and ₹ 60,982/- of PF Contribution which is paid before the due date of filing of the return. 2. The ld. CIT(A) ought to have restricted the disallowance of car depreciation as personal use to the extent of 1/5th instead of 1/10th. Additional Ground of appeal: The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming disallowance being 1/10th of vehicle depreciation on the ground that it is personal in nature in as much as in case of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee's case however is that relevant due date has to be seen not from the relevant month of salary but the one pertaining to its payment. He then files a computation chart indicating it to have paid above employees' PF/ESI contributions on 22.05.2009 and 28.05.2009 as against the due dates thereof following on 20.06.2009. The Revenue fails to dispute this factual position. We therefore quote this tribunal's co-ordinate bench decision in Kanoi paper Industries Ltd. vs. ACIT 75 TTJ 448 that the relevant date in such case is that of month of the actual payment of wages/salaries. We therefore rely on the above co-ordinate bench decision and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned disallowance as well. 4. In effect thus while any delayed deposit of PF/ESI is to be disallowed, in terms of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court's judgment in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (supra), the question as to whether there is a delay or not may be decided by the Assessing Officer in the light of above observations by the coordinate bench. The assessee will get relief, if found admissible, on that basis. 5. In the result, appeals of the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. GSRTC (Supra), wherein it was held as under: In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, and considering section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with sub-clause (x) of clause 24 of section 2, it is held that with respect to the sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of subclause (x) of clause (24) of section (2) applies, 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). Consequently, it is held that the learned tribunal has erred in deleting respective disallowances being employees' contribution to PF Account / ESI Account made by the AO as, as such, such sums were not credited by the respective assessee to the employees' accounts in the relevant fund or funds (in the present case Provident Fund and/or ESI Fund on or before the due date as per the explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Act i.e. date by which the concerned assessee was required as an employer to credit employees' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of usages of the vehicle, though specifically asked for and even the AR of the appellant had agreed for the proposed addition by the AO. Even during the appellate proceedings, appellant has requested for restricting the disallowance @ 5% but failed to furnish any details with regard to the usage of vehicles. The claim of the appellant cannot be allowed without any documentary evidences. In such facts, the claim of the appellant is rejected and the disallowance made b y the AO of ₹ 1,16,570/- is held justified and is hereby confirmed. Being aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A) assessee is in the second appeal before us. The ld. AR before us submitted that no disallowance of depreciation was made in earlier years on account of the personal use of the vehicles. Therefore, no disallowance on account of depreciation during the year can be made. The ld. AR in support of his claim relied on the judgment of Hon ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Sayaji Iron Engg. Co. vs. CIT reported in 121 taxman 43. On the other hand, the ld DR vehemently supported the order of authorities below. 10. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
