Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Saravana Stores (Gold Palace), Chennai vs Addl Cit, Central Cir-1(2), Chennai on 19 June, 2019
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, 'ए' यायपीठ, चे नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'A' BENCH, CHENNAI
ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, या यक सद य एवं ी इंटूर रामा राव, लेखा सद य केसम%
BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.890/Chny/2019
नधा(रण वष( /Assessment Year : 2013-14
M/s Saravana Stores (Gold Palace), The Additional Commissioner of
No.28, Ranganathan Street, v. Income Tax,
T. Nagar, Chennai - 600 017. Central Circle - 1(2),
Chennai.
PAN : ABSFS 1515 M
(अपीलाथ,/Appellant) (-.यथ,/Respondent)
अपीलाथ, क/ ओर से/Appellant by : Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, CA
-.यथ, क/ ओर से/Respondent by : Shri Lalmalsawma Pachuau, JCIT
सन
ु वाई क/ तार ख/Date of Hearing : 17.06.2019
घोषणा क/ तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 19.06.2019
आदे श /O R D E R
PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -18, Chennai, dated 14.02.2019 and pertains to assessment year 2013-14.
2. The only issue arises for consideration is addition of ₹39,45,053/- made towards employees' contribution to Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance Corporation. 2 I.T.A. No.890/Chny/19
3. Shri H. Yeshwanth Kumar, the Ld. representative for the assessee, submitted that the entire payment towards employees' contribution was made to the respective accounts before the due date for filing of return of income. Referring to the order of the CIT(Appeals), more particularly para 2.1, the Ld. representative submitted that the entire payment was made before the due date for filing the return of income. Therefore, in view of the judgment of Madras High Court in CIT v. Industrial Security and Intelligence India (P.) Ltd. in TC(A). No.585 & 586 of 2015 dated 24th July, 2015, according to the Ld. representative, there cannot be any disallowance.
4. On the contrary, Shri Lalmalsawma Pachuau, the Ld. Departmental Representative, submitted that the payment has to be made before the due date prescribed under respective enactments. In this case, the payment was made beyond the prescribed time limit allowed under Provident Fund and ESI Acts. Therefore, according to the Ld. D.R., the CIT(Appeals) has rightly confirmed the disallowance.
3 I.T.A. No.890/Chny/19
5. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material available on record. It is not in dispute that the payments were made towards employees' contribution to Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance Corporation before the due date for filing the return of income. The only contention of the Ld. D.R. is that the payment has to be made before the due date prescribed under the relevant Acts. The Madras High Court in Industrial Security and Intelligence India (P.) Ltd. (supra) had an occasion to examine this issue and found that when the payments were made before the date of filing of return of income, the same has to be allowed since admittedly the payments were made before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that there cannot be any disallowance. In view of the above, orders of both the authorities below are set aside and the disallowance made towards the payment of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance Corporation is deleted.
6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed.
4 I.T.A. No.890/Chny/19
Order pronounced in the court on 19th June, 2019 at Chennai.
sd/- sd/-
(इंटूर रामा राव) (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन)
(Inturi Rama Rao) (N.R.S. Ganesan)
लेखा सद य/Accountant Member या यक सद य/Judicial Member
चे नई/Chennai,
th
6दनांक/Dated, the 19 June, 2019.
Kri.
आदे श क/ - त7ल8प अ9े8षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ,/Appellant 2. -.यथ,/Respondent
3. आयकर आय:
ु त (अपील)/CIT(A)-18, Chennai-34
4. Principal CIT, Central-1, Chennai 5. 8वभागीय - त न ध/DR
6. गाड( फाईल/GF.