Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iiiludhiana v. M/S. Mohini Hosiery Millsludhiana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. --- Income Tax Appeal No. 173 of 2006Date of decision: 1.12.2010 Commissioner of Income Tax-IIILudhiana --- Appellant Versus M/s. Mohini Hosiery MillsLudhiana --- Respondent CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOELHON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL --- Present:Mr. Dinesh Gupta, Standing Counsel for the appellant-Revenue. None for the respondent-assessee. --- AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. This order will dispose of Income Tax Appeal Nos. 173 of2006 and 159 of 2007 as similar issues of law are involved in both ofthem. Income Tax Appeal No. 173 has been filed under Section260A of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) by theRevenue against the order dated 29.7.2005, passed by the IncomeTax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench ‘A’ Chandigarh (in short“the Tribunal”) in ITA No283/CHANDI/2003, relating to theassessment year 1998-99. The appeal was admitted on 7.9.2006 for determination of the following substantial questions of law by this Court: 1-Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in allowing claimof deduction under Section 36(1) (va) read with Section43B in respect of late deposits of payment of PF, ESI andEPF”case, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in allowing claimof deduction under Section 36(1) (va) read with Section43B in respect of late deposits of payment of PF, ESI andEPF” 2-Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in relying on thejudgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofAllied Motors (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) reported in 224 ITR677 because this judgment relates to Sales tax collectedup to 31[st] March but not paid to the Sales Tax Departmenttill 31[st] March in view of the time allowed for suchpayment under the Sales Tax Act.”case the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in relying on thejudgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case ofAllied Motors (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (1997) reported in 224 ITR677 because this judgment relates to Sales tax collectedup to 31[st] March but not paid to the Sales Tax Departmenttill 31[st] March in view of the time allowed for suchpayment under the Sales Tax Act.” 3-Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of thecase, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in holding that theamendment made in 43B(b) w.e.f. 1.4.2004 wasretrospective?”case, the Hon’ble ITAT was right in law in holding that theamendment made in 43B(b) w.e.f. 1.4.2004 wasretrospective?” The facts, in brief, necessary for adjudication as narratedin the appeal, are that the respondent-assessee derived income frommanufacturing and sale of hosiery goods. While completingassessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, the assessing officer byorder dated 20.3.2001, disallowed deduction of Rs. 47,075/- and Rs.2,73,353/- in view of provisions of Section 36(1)(va) read with Section43B of the Act as the payments in respect of PF, ESI and EPF werefound to have been made after the “due date”. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) {in short “the CIT(A)”}, accepted the appeal ofthe assessee and deleted the entire additions. The Tribunal upheldthe order of the CIT(A) by the order under appeal. It is how the Revenue is in appeal before us. Learned counsel for the Revenue very fairly accepts thatthe issues raised in the instant appeal stand concluded by the apexCourt’s judgment in Commissioner of Income Tax v. AlomExtrusions Ltd. (2009) 319 ITR 306 (SC) and this Court in IncomeTax Appeal No. 663 of 2005 (The Commissioner of Income TaxPatiala v. M/s. Rai Agro Industries Ltd. Sangrur) decided on30.11.2010, in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. Thesubstantial questions of law are, thus, answered against theRevenue and in favour of the assessee. Resultantly, the appeals are dismissed. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE December 1, 2010*rkmalik* (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE