Commissioner of Income Tax vs ANZ Information Technology P. Ltd.

D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.—The appeal by the Revenue u/s 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Questions of law raised in this appeal are as under:

Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the contribution made towards provident fund by the employer belatedly and contribution towards Employees'' State Insurance contribution, i.e., beyond the stipulated period provided under the Provident Fund Act, is an allowable deduction in view of Section 43B of the Act?

Whether the appellate authorities were correct in holding that the deposit made by the employer of the employee''s contribution belatedly and contribution towards Employees'' State Insurance contribution, i.e., beyond the stipulated period under the Income Tax Act and under the Provident Fund Act and the Employees'' State Insurance Act cannot be treated as the income of the assessee u/s 36(1)(va) read with Section 2(24)(x) in view of Section 43B of the Act?

Sri Aravind, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant fairly submits that while answering similar questions, a Division Bench of this Court has already taken a view against the Revenue in I.T.A. Nos. 1087 and 1088 of 2006 and the judgment rendered in this case of the Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Sabari Enterprises, virtually covers the present case also.

However, learned Counsel would submit that the Revenue having not accepted the correctness of the decision has sought for grant of leave before the Supreme Court and as of now SLP is pending before the Supreme Court and, therefore, submits this matter can be admitted and kept pending awaiting the decision of the Supreme Court.

While the SLP is not yet examined and leave itself is not given, we do not find it proper to admit and keep this appeal pending in this Court on the premise of a SLP being pending examination by the Supreme Court and would rather dismiss the appeal at the admission stage itself following the judgment of the earlier Division Bench of this Court in the case of CIT v. Sabari Enterprises [2008] 298 ITR 141 (Karn).

Appeal dismissed.