Commissioner Of Income Tax,, Jaipur-Ii ,Jaipur v. M/S Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Ltd.,, Vidyut Bhawan, Janpath, Jyoti Nagar Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH ATJAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 136 / 2011 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, JAIPUR-II ,JAIPUR ----Appellant Versus M/S RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT PRASARAN NIGAM LTD.,, VIDYUT BHAWAN, JANPATH, JYOTI NAGAR JAIPUR ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Ms. Mahi Yadav on behalf of Mr. Sameer Jain _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAY KUMAR VYASJudgment 24/04/2017 1.By way of this appeal, the appellant-Department haschallenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal whereby theTribunal has dismissed the appeal of the department andconfirmed the order of CIT (A). 2.This Court while admitting the appeal framed the followingsubstantial question of law:- “Whether on the facts and in law the Hon’ble ITAT wasjustified in deleting addition for depositing GPF/CPF/ESI beyondthe prescribed time despite the fact that as per Section 36(1)(va) employees contribution should have been deposited intime as prescribed in the relevant law. Section 43B permitsdelayed payment if paid before filing of ROI as per Section139(1) in case of employer’s contribution not in the case ofemployee’s contribution?” 3.Counsel for the appellant has taken us to the order of the Tribunal as well as the CIT (A) and contended that the view takenby the AO ought to be considered and the deduction or benefits which was given under CPF are contrary to law. 4.However, in view of the decision of this Court in D.B. IncomeTax Appeal No. 278/2011 (CIT, Jaipur-II, Jaipur Vs. JVVNL)decided on 6.1.2014 wherein speaking for the Bench, it has beenheld as under:- “4. It is the claim of the respondent-assessee that thoughthe amount could not be paid on or before the due dateunder the respective Act, but the same was deposited on orbefore the due date of furnishing of the Income Tax returnsunder Section 139 of the I.T. Act and, therefore, in view ofSection 43B read with Section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act theentire amount was allowable. 5. Counsel for the revenue submitted that the amount hadto be deposited on or before the due date 3 of therespective GPF Act, CPF Act and ESI Act and since the samewas not paid on or before the due date of the respectiveActs, therefore, it was not even allowable under theprovisions of Section 36(1)(va) of the I.T. Act nor could beallowed under Section 43B of the I.T. Act. 6. We have considered the arguments advanced by thelearned counsel for the revenue and have also gone throughthe impugned orders. In our view no substantial question oflaw arise out of the orders of the ITAT as it is an admittedfact that the entire amount was deposited by therespondent-assessee at least on or before the due date offiling of the returns under Section 139 of the I.T. Act andbeing a concurrent finding of fact by the respectiveauthorities and in the light of the judgments rendered bythis Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs.M/s State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (D.B. Income Tax AppealNo.177/2011) so also Commissioner of Income Tax vs.Jaipur Vidyut Viaran Nigam Ltd. (D.B. Income Tax AppealNo.189/2011), of even date wherein it has been held that ifthe amount has been deposited on or before the due date offiling the return under Section 139 and admittedly it wasdeposited on or before the due date then the amountcannot be disallowed under Section 43B of the I.T. Act orunder Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. In fact in the abovematters one of the party is same as in the present appeals,therefore, the issue is no 4 more res-integra in the light ofjudgments of this Court referred to supra and, in our view,no substantial question of law arises out of the impugnedorders of the ITAT, which may require attention of thisCourt.” 5.In that view of the matter, the issue is required to be