Commissioner of Income Tax-I vs Shyouraj Singh B. Chauhan

K.S. Jhaveri, J.—This appeal u/s. 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is filed against the judgment and order dated 19.09.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ''C'' in ITA No. 2696/AHD/2010 whereby, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed.

Briefly stated, the facts are that the assessee herein is engaged in the business of providing security services to its clients. The assessee was called upon to furnish separate details of contribution made in respect of ESIC and PF as it was found that the assessee had committed certain alleged defaults in depositing its contributions.

The assessee filed its return of income on 31.10.2007 declaring total income at Rs. 31,18,680/-. Assessment scrutiny was undertaken and ultimately, the Assessing Officer passed the order of assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act on 24.09.2009 declaring total income at Rs. 61,06,276/- and ordered to charge interest u/s. 234B and 234C and initiate penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. Aggrieve by the order of A.O., the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee vide order dated 03.05.2010. Being aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the Revenue filed appeal before the Tribunal. After hearing both the sides, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the Revenue, vide impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2013. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the Revenue.

The following question of law was posed for admission of the appeal;

"Whether the Appellate Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 29.29 Lacs being late payment of PF/ESIC which is required to be treated as income of the assessee u/s. 2(24)(x) which is not deductible u/s. 36(1)(va) in case of late payment?"

We have heard learned Mr. M.R. Bhatt learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Revenue. Though served, none appears on behalf of the assessee.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the question of law posed for our consideration, we are of the view that the issue involved in this appeal is already concluded by a decision of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax II Vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, wherein, it has been held that if the assessee has not credited the employees'' contribution to the employees'' account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date mentioned in the Explanation to section 36(1)(va), the assessee shall not be entitled to deduction of such amount in computing the income referred to in section 28.

Therefore, the proposed question of law as to whether the Tribunal has substantially erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 29.29 Lacs being late payment of PF/ESIC is required to be treated as income of the assessee u/s. 2(24)(x), which is not deductible u/s. 36(1)(va) in case of late payment, is answered in the negative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.

Consequently, the impugned judgment and order dated 19.09.2013 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench ''C'' in ITA No. 2696/AHD/2010 is quashed and set aside. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed.