Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
M/S. Meghmani Indurstries Ltd.,, ... vs The Dcit Circle -2(1)(2),, Ahmedabad on 21 February, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD "D" BENCH AHMEDABAD
BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
ITA No. 1153/Ahd/2016
(Assessment Year: 2012-13)
M/s. Meghmani Industries Ltd.,
Plot No. 27, Phase-II, GIDC,
Vatva, Ahmedabad - 382445 Appellant
Vs.
DCIT,
Circle - 2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Respondent
PAN: AABCM0535G
&
ITA No. 1154/Ahd/2016
(Assessment Year: 2012-13)
M/s. Meghmani Dyes And
Intermediates Ltd.,
97, Phase-II, GIDC,
Vatva, Ahmedabad - 382445 Appellant
Vs.
DCIT,
Circle - 2(1)(2), Ahmedabad Respondent
PAN: AABCM6639D
ITA Nos. 1153 & 1154/Ahd/16 [Meghmani Industries Ltd. & Meghmani Dyes &
Intermediates Ltd. vs. DCIT ] A.Ys. 2012-13 -2-
आवेदक क ओर से/By Assessee : None
राज व क ओर से/By Revenue : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. D.R.
सन
ु वाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing : 19.02.2018
घोषणा क तार ख/Date of
Pronouncement : 21.02.2018
ORDER
PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
These two different assessees' appeals for assessment year 2012-13 arise against the CIT(A)-2, Ahmedabad's separate orders; both dated 13.04.2016, in case nos. CIT(A)-2/127/DC. Cir. 2(1)(2)/2015-16 & CIT(A)-2/126/DC. Cir. 2(1)(2)/2015-16, in proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act".
Heard the Revenue. Case files perused.
2. Case called twice. None appears at assessee's behest. The registry has already sent an RPAD notice to the assessee. We therefore proceed ex parte against the assessee.
3. The assessee's sole grievance pleaded in both appeals challenges correctness of the CIT(A)'s order upholding Assessing Officer's action disallowing employees' contribution to provident fund and ESI of Rs.1,71,008/- and Rs.1,95,115/-; respectively, in its assessment orders; both dated 27.03.2015. Lower appellate findings under challenge in former case read as under:
"2.3 Decision:
I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the assessment order and the written submission of the appellant. The AO has made the disallowance on account of late payment towards PF of Rs.162369/- and ESI of Rs.8639/-, totalling ITA Nos. 1153 & 1154/Ahd/16 [Meghmani Industries Ltd. & Meghmani Dyes & Intermediates Ltd. vs. DCIT ] A.Ys. 2012-13 -3- to Rs.1,71,008/-. The Assessing Officer in the order has mentioned that as per the provisions of clause (va) of sub section (1) of 36 of the Act, the assessee is entitled to deduction in respect of the sum referred to in sub clause (x) of clause (24) of section 2 of the Act if such sum is credited by the assessee to the employees account in the relevant fund on or before the due date of respective Act. The AO has further relied on the recent judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 41 Taxmann.com 100 (Gujarat).
2.4. The appellant on the other hand has stated during the course of assessment proceedings as well as at the appellate stage that the contribution collected from employees towards Provident Fund and employees contribution to ESI were deposited in the fund after the due date mentioned in the respective Act but before end of the financial year. In other words, the appellant has stated that the said amounts of the employees contribution has been duly deposited before due date of filing of filing of return of income mentioned in section 139(1) of the I, T. Act, 1961.
The appellant has also relied on several judicial pronouncements which has been mentioned in the written submission of the appellant.
2.5. It is worth here to mention that the disallowance was made for the reason that employees' contribution to PF was not made within the due dates specified under the P.F. Act. The addition was also supported by the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of C!T Vs. GSRTC in Tax Appeal No. 637 of 2013. It has been found that the judgement of the jurisdictional Gujarat High Court has the priority over the other decisions/judgements cited by the appellant and the same is binding to be followed by this office.
2.6. In view of the above facts of the case, and considering the recent judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation [2014] 41 Taxmann.com 100 (Gujarat), the disallowance made by the AO is found correct and justified and hence the same is confirmed. Thus the ground of appeal is dismissed."
It has therefore come on record that the CIT(A) has followed hon'ble jurisdictional high court's order in Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation case ITA Nos. 1153 & 1154/Ahd/16 [Meghmani Industries Ltd. & Meghmani Dyes & Intermediates Ltd. vs. DCIT ] A.Ys. 2012-13 -4- (supra) deciding the very question of law in Revenue's favour. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned disallowance in this legal and factual backdrop. The assessee's sole substantive ground in both cases is accordingly rejected.
4. These two assessees' appeals are dismissed.
[Pronounced in the open Court on this the 21st day of February, 2018.] Sd/- Sd/-
(PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (S. S. GODARA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ahmedabad: Dated 21/02/2018
True Copy
S.K.SINHA
आदे श क त ल
प अ े
षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. राज व / Revenue
2. आवेदक / Assessee
3. संबं धत आयकर आयु!त / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयु!त- अपील / CIT (A)
5. )वभागीय ,-त-न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाड3 फाइल / Guard file.
By order/आदे श से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद ।