THE D.C.I.T. Vs. JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD.
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD.
Click here to view full judgement.
R.P.Tolani, Member (A) -
(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order dated 08/12/2011 of the learned C.I.T.(A) -II, Jaipur for the A.Y. 2008 -09. The effective grounds of appeal are as under: -
"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in:
(i) deleting addition of Rs. 1,09,018/ - made on account of depositing the PF/ESI payment beyond the prescribed time despite the fact that as per section 36(1)(va) employees contribution should have been deposited in time as prescribed in the relevant law. Section 43B permits delayed payment, if paid before filing the ROI as per section 139(1) in case of employer's contribution not in the case of employees contribution.
(ii) holding that payments of Rs. 2,81,23,73,125/ - on account of transmission/wheeling/SLDC charges to RRVPN were not for technical services liable for making TDS U/s. 194J of the I.T. Act as such provision of section 40(a)(ia) are not applicable.
(iii) deleting the addition of Rs. 1,73,07,800/ - made on account of front end fees paid to HUDCO for raising the loan holding it to be revenue expenditure."
(2.) THE first ground of appeal is against deleting addition of Rs. 1,09,018/ - made on account of depositing the PF/ESI payment beyond the prescribed time despite the fact that as per section 36(1)(va) employees contribution should have been deposited in time as prescribed in the relevant law. Section 43B permits delayed payment, if paid before filing the ROI as per section 139(1) in case of employer's contribution not in the case of employees' contribution. In this case, the learned Assessing Officer observed that the assessee company is engaged in distribution and sale of electricity. The assessee company e -filed its return of income on 27/09/2008 declaring total loss of Rs. 1,43,75,48,737/ -. This case was scrutinized U/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act). The learned Assessing Officer observed that as per Annexure C -3 of tax audit report, the assessee failed to deposit employees ESI contribution in few of cases amounting to Rs. 1,09,018/ -. In respect of various units/branches within the prescribed time limit as per provisions of the relevant act and addition on this account is liable to be made. The learned Assessing Officer added back this amount as per provisions of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter to the learned CIT(A), who had allowed the appeal on the ground that the assessee made payment before due date of return by relying on the various decisions of the Hon'ble High Court referred on page 3 of the assessment order.
(3.) NOW the Revenue is in appeal before us and the learned DR relied upon the recent decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation : 366 ITR ITR 170 (Guj.) and argued that it should be paid as per the date prescribed in the relevant Act. Therefore, the same may be reverted.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.