- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Commissioner Of Income Tax, Jaipur-Ii, Jaipur v. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Factual and Procedural Background
These are Income Tax Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act challenging orders of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench dated 30/09/2008, 20/08/2010, 30/09/2008, 30/09/2008 and 30/09/2008 arising out of ITA No. 825.JP/2008 (A.Y. 2005-06), ITA No. 333.JP/2010 (A.Y. 2006-07), ITA No. 826.JP/2008 (A.Y. 2003-04), ITA No. 76.JP/2008 (A.Y. 2001-02) and ITA No. 827.JP/2008 (A.Y. 2004-05) respectively. Because the controversy was identical in each matter, the appeals were heard and decided by a common order.
On the merits, the respondent-assessee claimed deductions for payments of GPF, CPF and ESI under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the Income Tax Act. The revenue contended that although the amounts were paid by the assessee, they were not paid within the due dates prescribed under the respective statutes (GPF, CPF and ESI Acts) and hence were not allowable under Section 36(1)(va) or under Section 43B. The assessee's position was that the amounts, though not paid by the statutory due dates under the respective Acts, were deposited on or before the due date for furnishing Income Tax returns under Section 139, and therefore were allowable under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va).
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether payments of GPF, CPF and ESI that were not made by the due dates under the respective statutory Acts but were deposited on or before the due date for filing income-tax returns under Section 139 can be allowed as deductions under Section 36(1)(va) and/or saved from disallowance under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (Revenue)
- The payments in question were not deposited on or before the due dates prescribed by the respective GPF, CPF and ESI statutes; therefore they are not allowable under Section 36(1)(va) and cannot be permitted under Section 43B of the Income Tax Act.
Respondent (Assessee)
- Although the payments were not made by the statutory due dates under the respective Acts, they were deposited on or before the due date for furnishing returns under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act; accordingly, under Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) the amounts are allowable.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Commissioner of Income Tax v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (D.B Income Tax Appeal No. 177/2011) | It was held that if the amount has been deposited on or before the due date of filing the return under Section 139 and admittedly it was deposited on or before the due date, then the amount cannot be disallowed under Section 43B of the I.T. Act or under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. | The court relied on this decision to conclude that where the admitted fact is deposit on or before the due date for filing returns under Section 139, the amounts cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or Section 36(1)(va); accordingly, no substantial question of law arises. |
| Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jaipur Vidyut Viaran Nigam Ltd. (D.B Income Tax Appeal No. 189/2011) | Same principle as above: deposit on or before the due date for filing returns under Section 139 precludes disallowance under Section 43B or Section 36(1)(va). | The court applied this authority alongside the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur decision, observing that the issue is no longer res-integra and supporting the conclusion that no substantial question of law arises from the impugned ITAT orders. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the parties' submissions and the impugned ITAT orders and proceeded on the following bases stated in the opinion:
- It is an admitted and concurrent finding of fact by the authorities that the entire amount was deposited by the respondent-assessee at least on or before the due date for filing returns under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act.
- In light of this admitted fact and the judgments of this Court in the two cited decisions (State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and Jaipur Vidyut Viaran Nigam Ltd.), the legal position is that an amount deposited on or before the due date for filing returns under Section 139 cannot be disallowed under Section 43B or under Section 36(1)(va).
- One of the parties in the cited matters is the same as in the present appeals, reinforcing that the point is no longer an open question (res-integra) in this court's view.
- Because the facts show deposit by the due date of filing returns and existing precedent controls, the court concluded there is no substantial question of law arising from the ITAT orders that requires this Court's adjudication.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED IN LIMINE
Direct effect: The Income Tax Appeals are dismissed for lack of merit. The court held that, given the admitted fact of deposit on or before the due date for filing returns under Section 139 and the controlling decisions cited, the amounts in question could not be disallowed under Section 43B or Section 36(1)(va).
Broader implications: The opinion relies on earlier decisions and expressly states the issue is no longer res-integra; it does not announce a new legal precedent beyond applying those existing judgments. No further or novel legal principle is set out in this brief order.
BY THE COURT: (Per Hon'ble Ranka J.)
These Income Tax Appeals under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act (for short I.T Act) are directed against the orders dated 30/09/2008, 20/08/2010, 30/09/2008, 30/09/2008 & 30/09/2008 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short ITAT) arising out of ITA No. 825.JP/2008 for Assessment Year 2005-06, ITA No. 333.JP/2010 Assessment Year 2006-07, ITA No. 826.JP/2008 Assessment Year 2003-04, ITA No. 76.JP/2008 Assessment Year 2001-02 and ITA No. 827.JP/2008 Assessment Year 2004-05 respectively.
2. Since the controversy involved is identical, these Income Tax Appeals are being decided by this common order.
3. The brief facts as reveal from the record are that a claim was made by the respondent-assessee about payment of GPF, CPF and ESI and the said amount was claimed under Section 36(1)(va) read with Section 43B of the I.T Act. It is the claim of the revenue that the said amount though paid by the assessee, but was not paid within the due date as given under the relevant Act of GPF, CPF and ESI and, therefore, the said amount could not be allowed either under Section 36(1)(va) and even under Section 43B of the I.T Act as it was not paid on or before the due date of the respective Acts.
4. It is the claim of the respondent-assessee that though the amount could not be paid on or before the due date under the respective Act, but the same was deposited on or before the due date of furnishing of the Income Tax returns under Section 139 of the I.T Act and, therefore, in view of Section 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the I.T Act the entire amount was allowable.
5. Counsel for the revenue submitted that the amount had to be deposited on or before the due date of the respective GPF Act, CPF Act and ESI Act and since the same was not paid on or before the due date of the respective Acts, therefore, it was not even allowable under the provisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the I.T Act nor could be allowed under Section 43B of the I.T Act.
6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the revenue and have also gone through the impugned orders. In our view no substantial question of law arise out of the orders of the ITAT as it is an admitted fact that the entire amount was deposited by the respondent-assessee at least on or before the due date of filing of the returns under Section 139 of the I.T Act and being a concurrent finding of fact by the respective authorities and in the light of the judgments rendered by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (D.B Income Tax Appeal No. 177/2011) so also Commissioner of Income Tax v. Jaipur Vidyut Viaran Nigam Ltd. (D.B Income Tax Appeal No. 189/2011), of even date wherein it has been held that if the amount has been deposited on or before the due date of filing the return under Section 139 and admittedly it was deposited on or before the due date then the amount cannot be disallowed under Section 43B of the I.T Act or under Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. In fact in the above matters one of the party is same as in the present appeals, therefore, the issue is no more res-integra in the light of judgments of this Court referred to supra and, in our view, no substantial question of law arises out of the impugned orders of the ITAT, which may require attention of this Court.
7. We find no merit in these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed in limine.
Alert