C.I.T. Kolkata IV v. Shyamal Kumar Parui
[Citation -2014-LL-0910-109]

Citation 2014-LL-0910-109
Appellant Name C.I.T. Kolkata IV
Respondent Name Shyamal Kumar Parui
Court HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 10/09/2014
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags provident fund • cash payment
Bot Summary: We find that there is no dispute that the assessee has made all such payments within the financial year relevant to the assessment year 2001-02. We further find that the decision of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Halmira Estate Tea Pvt. Ltd. vs- CIT 268 ITR 498 is prior to the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2003 inasmuch as 2nd proviso to section 43B has been omitted by the Finance Act, 2003. The Tribunal in the case of Jagatdal Jute Industries Limited after considering the amendment made by the Finance Act, 2003 has held that no such disallowance shall be made if the said sum is actually paid by the assessee on or before the due date applicable in his case for furnishing of return of income u/s. We further find that recently the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs- Vestas RRB India Ltd. 92 ITD 1 has again held at page 2 note that As per the amendment provisions of Section 43B, the payments made by the employer towards contribution to PF, ESI, gratuity, superannuation and other welfare funds are allowable if the same are paid before filing the return of income and necessary evidence of such payments is enclosed with the return of income. In other words, no disallowance of such payment would be made even if the same are made beyond the due dates prescribed in section 36(1)(va) Respectfully following the above decisions of the Tribunal and keeping in view the consistency, we decline to 3 interfere in the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) on this account and accordingly, the ground taken by the revenue is rejected. Since we find that the Tribunal has found that the statutory dues were paid before the filing of return and this was in keeping with the consistent stand, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises in so far as the first question is concerned. So far as the second question is concerned, we are of the view that it as relates to a question of fact, the order of the Tribunal need not be interfered with.


ORDER SHEET IN HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE ITA No. 451 of 2005 C.I.T. KOLKATA IV Versus SHYAMAL KUMAR PARUI BEFORE: Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMITRA PAL Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK Date : 10th September, 2014. Ms. S.Das De, Advocate Court : This appeal has been preferred under section 260A of Income Tax Act, 1961 from order dated 13th June, 2005 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal D Bench, Kolkata in ITA No. 2147/Kol/2004 for assessment year 2001-2002 on following questions: i) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was justified in deleting addition of Rs.35,268/- and Rs.5,89,024/- made under section 43B on account of delayed payment of Provident Fund and Employees State Insurance even on basis of fact that said payments were not made within financial year relevant to assessment year 2001- 2002; ii) Whether on facts and in circumstances of case, Tribunal was right in deleting addition of Rs.7,97,786/- made by Assessing Officer on account of bogus liability since assessee failed to produce any original bills and vouchers in support of such huge cash payment of expenses. 2 Heard Ms. Das De, learned advocate for appellant. We find that Tribunal while upholding order passed by CIT (Appeal) had dealt with issue in following manner : We have carefully considered rival submissions of parties and perused materials available on record. we find that there is no dispute that assessee has made all such payments within financial year relevant to assessment year 2001-02. We further find that decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in case of Halmira Estate Tea Pvt. Ltd. vs- CIT (2004) 268 ITR 498 (Cal) is prior to amendment made by Finance Act, 2003 inasmuch as 2nd proviso to section 43B has been omitted by Finance Act, 2003. Tribunal in case of Jagatdal Jute & Industries Limited (supra) after considering amendment made by Finance Act, 2003 has held that no such disallowance shall be made if said sum is actually paid by assessee on or before due date applicable in his case for furnishing of return of income u/s. 139(1). We further find that recently Tribunal in case of ACIT vs- Vestas RRB India Ltd. (2005) 92 ITD 1 (Del) has again held at page 2 (sheet) note that As per amendment provisions of Section 43B, payments made by employer towards contribution to PF, ESI, gratuity, superannuation and other welfare funds are allowable if same are paid before filing return of income and necessary evidence of such payments is enclosed with return of income. In other words, no disallowance of such payment would be made even if same are made beyond due dates prescribed in section 36(1)(va) Respectfully following above decisions of Tribunal and keeping in view consistency, we decline to 3 interfere in order passed by Ld. CIT(A) on this account and accordingly, ground taken by revenue is rejected. Since we find that Tribunal has found that statutory dues were paid before filing of return and this was in keeping with consistent stand, we are of view that no substantial question of law arises in so far as first question is concerned. So far as second question is concerned, we are of view that it as relates to question of fact, order of Tribunal need not be interfered with. Therefore, application and appeal are dismissed. (SOUMITRA PAL, J.) (DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) km AR(CR) C.I.T. Kolkata IV v. Shyamal Kumar Parui
Report Error