Income Tax – 7 v. Planman Hr Pvt. Ltd

$~2 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ITA No. 599/2017 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – 7..... AppellantThrough :Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, SeniorStanding Counsel with Mr.SanjayKumar, Junior Standing Counsel forRevenue. versus PLANMAN HR PVT. LTD.,..... RespondentThrough :Mr. Ved Jain, Ms.Rano Jain,Ms.Devina Sharma, Advocates. CORAM:JUSTICE S. MURALIDHARJUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH % O R D E R11.09.2017 1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against an order dated23[rd]January 2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (‘ITAT’) inITA No. 5028/Del/2016 for the Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2013-14. 2. The question urged is as under: “Whether on facts and in the circumstances of the caseLd. ITAT was correct in a case in deleting the addition ofRs. 7,91,59,691/- made by the AO on account of latedeposit of PF, ESI and professional tax ignoring theprovisions of Section 36(l)(va) and Section 7(24)(x) ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961?” 3. Factually, it has been found by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) [‘CIT(A)’] as well as by the ITAT, concurrently, that the paymentby the Assessee employer towards the employees’ contribution of theProvident Fund was made before the date of filing of the return by theAssessee and thus, in terms of the decision of this court in Commissioner ofIncome Tax v. AIMIL Ltd. [2010] 321 ITR 508 (Del), it was within the‘due date’ for the purpose of Section 36 (1) (va) of the Income Tax Act,1961 (‘Act’) read with Section 43 (B) thereof. 4. Learned counsel for the Revenue attempted to persuade this Court toreconsider the correctness of its decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v.AIMIL Ltd. (supra). The Court finds that the decision has consistently beenfollowed in later decisions of this Court and even by the Allahabad HighCourt in Sagun Foundry Private Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax,Kanpur (2017) 291 CTR (All) 557 and the Karnataka High Court in M/sEssae Teraoka Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax [2014]366 ITR 408 (Kar). 5. Accordingly, the Court is not persuaded to frame the question of law asurged by the Revenue. The appeal is dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. SEPTEMBER 11, 2017j PRATHIBA M. SINGH, J.