In Cit v. The Solitary Common Issue That Arose In These

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU MONDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017/24TH ASWINA, 1939 ITA.No. 68 of 2016 ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 461/2015 of I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH DATED 29.10.2015 ------------ APPELLANT/APPELLANT IN ITA:----------------------------------- KALYAN SILKS TRICHUR (P) LTD. CORPORATE OFFICE, 4/621/2, KURIACHIRA POST, THRISSUR-680006. BY ADVS.SRI.K.N.SREEKUMARAN SMT.V.P.SEENA DEVI RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT IN ITA:---------------------------------------- JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RANGE-I, THRISSUR-680001. SC SRI.K.M.V. PANDALAI THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16-10-2017, A/W ITA 70/16, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THEFOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, & DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ Income Tax Appeal Nos.68 & 70 of 2016 ------------------------------------------------Dated this the 16[th ]day of October, 2017 JUDGMENT Antony Dominic, J. 1. aThese appeals are filed by the assessee impugningthe common order passed by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Kochi Bench in I.T.A. Nos.461 and 462 of 2015concerning the Assessment Years 2008-09 and 2009-10. 2. The common questions of law framed read asunder: "1.Whether on the facts and in thecircumstance of the case the appellateTribunal is justified in dismissing the appealagainst the impugned orders for the reasonsthat the employees contribution to ESI & PFdeposited after the statutory period butbefore filing of returns u/s 139(1) of the ITAct is not entitled to deduction u/s 36(1)(va)of the IT Act?circumstance of the case the appellateTribunal is justified in dismissing the appealagainst the impugned orders for the reasonsthat the employees contribution to ESI & PFdeposited after the statutory period butbefore filing of returns u/s 139(1) of the ITAct is not entitled to deduction u/s 36(1)(va)of the IT Act? 2.Whether the appellate Tribunal is justified inrelying on the decision of this Hon'ble Courtrelying on the decision of this Hon'ble Court ITA.Nos.68 & 70 of 2016 in CIT v. Merchem Ltd. (2015) 61Taxmann.com 119 (Ker) without followingthe ratio of the decision of the Apex Court inCIT v. Vinay Cements Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR268 = (2009) 313 ITR (St) sustaining theview that both employees' contribution ifdeposited before filing of return is anallowable deduction?Taxmann.com 119 (Ker) without followingthe ratio of the decision of the Apex Court inCIT v. Vinay Cements Ltd. (2007) 213 CTR268 = (2009) 313 ITR (St) sustaining theview that both employees' contribution ifdeposited before filing of return is anallowable deduction? 3.Whether the decision of this Hon'ble Court inCIT v. Merchem Ltd., deserves to bereconsidered in the light of the apex Courtdecision in CIT v. Vinay Cements Ltd. (2007)213 CTR 268 which was not brought to thenotice of this Hon'ble Court?”CIT v. Merchem Ltd., deserves to bereconsidered in the light of the apex Courtdecision in CIT v. Vinay Cements Ltd. (2007)213 CTR 268 which was not brought to thenotice of this Hon'ble Court?” 3. The solitary common issue that arose in these appeals was with regard to the legality of dis-allowance of deduction made towards belated deposit of employeescontribution of Provident Fund/Employees State Insurance.A reading of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that thefirst appellate authority confirmed the order of dis-allowance following the order passed by the Tribunal in ITANo.454/2014. In the appeal, the Tribunal has decided thecases against the assessee, following the judgments of thisCourt in CIT v. South India Corporation (2015) 58 ITA.Nos.68 & 70 of 2016 taxmann.com 208(Kerala) and CIT v. Merchem Ltd.(2015) 61 taxmann.com 119 (Kerala). 3. The solitary common issue that arose in these appeals was with regard to the legality of dis-allowance of deduction made towards belated deposit of employeescontribution of Provident Fund/Employees State Insurance.A reading of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that thefirst appellate authority confirmed the order of dis-allowance following the order passed by the Tribunal in ITANo.454/2014. In the appeal, the Tribunal has decided thecases against the assessee, following the judgments of thisCourt in CIT v. South India Corporation (2015) 58 ITA.Nos.68 & 70 of 2016 taxmann.com 208(Kerala) and CIT v. Merchem Ltd.(2015) 61 taxmann.com 119 (Kerala). 4. In the light of the above, since the law is thussettled, we are not persuaded to think that these appealsgive rise to any question of law to be considered by thisCourt. Appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/- DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE kns/- //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE ITA.Nos.68 & 70 of 2016