D.b. Income Tax Appeal v. M/S. Anil Special Steel Industries Ltd

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHANJAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O.R.D.E.R D.B. Income Tax Appeal No.4/2015Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur-III Vs. M/s. Anil Special Steel Industries Ltd. Date of Order: 04/08/2016 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. RANKA Mr. Sameer Jain Adv., for appellant. 1.In the instant appeal two substantial question of law have beenraised by the revenue regarding interpretation of Sec.43B & Sec.36(1)(va) of the IT Act, 1961 with regard to the disallowance of PF and ESIpayments. While the Assessing Officer disallowed the same as it waspaid after the due date of the relevant provisions of PF & ESI Act,however, the CIT (A) as well as the Tribunal recorded a finding of factthat though the amount may have been paid after the due date not inaccordance with the provisions of PF & ESI Act but was paid on orbefore the due date of furnishing of return of income in the instantcase and accordingly deleted the addition made by the AssessingOfficer. 2.In our view, the identical self same question has already beenanswered by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs.M/s. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam ltd. : (2014) 363 ITR 70 (Raj.) and also in the case of CIT Vs. Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahkari Sangth Ltd :(2014) 366 ITR 163 (Raj.) than it does not remain substantial question of law for further consideration by this Court. 3.In so far as the question No.1 raised by the revenue amountingto Rs. 3,94,67,254/- on account of remission of interest liability,counsel for the appellant submits there appears to be some factualerror and can be taken care of by filing rectification applicationu/Sec.254 (2) of the Act to the Tribunal and seeks liberty for movingan appropriate application for rectification and for that liberty maybe granted to the counsel. 4.After we have heard counsel for the appellant, we find nosubstance to entertain the instant appeal as no question of lawemerges for our consideration, however, consider it appropriate togrant liberty to the appellant to file rectification applicationu/Sec.254 (2) of the Act. in so far as remission of interest liabilitybefore the Tribunal, if so advised. 5.Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit, is herebydismissed with liberty prayed for. (AJAY RASTOGI), J.