Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax Jaipur -Ii, Jaipur v. Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Vidyut Bhawanjanpath Marg Jaipur

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 312/2018 Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Jaipur -II, Jaipur ----Appellant Versus Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Vidyut BhawanJanpath Marg Jaipur ----Respondent For Appellant: Mr. Anuroop Singhi withMr. Aditya KhandelwalFor Respondent: Mr. Prakul Khurana withMr. Rajat Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Order 26/09/2024 -AVNEESH JHINGAN, J: 1.This appeal is filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) against the order dated 08.05.2018passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur(for short ‘the Tribunal’). 2.The brief facts are that the respondent-company is engagedin distribution of electricity. The return for assessment year 2008-09 was filed and the assessment was finalized under Section143(3) of the Act. The two issues arose in the assessmentproceedings. Firstly, can deduction be allowed if employees’ shareof provident fund is deposited beyond the date stipulated in theEmployees’ Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act,1952 (for short ‘EPF Act’) and Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 (for short ‘ESI Act’). Secondly, the effect of late deposit ofTDS on claiming deduction of the expenditure. 3.The appeal filed by the respondent was accepted by theCommissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) and the appeal filed by theappellant was dismissed by the Tribunal, hence this appeal. 4.The appeal was admitted on 19.05.2023 formulatingfollowing two substantial questions of law:- “(1) Whether the view taken by theITAT that employees’ contribution toProvident Fund and ESI is governed bythe provisions of Section 43B of theIncome Tax Act, 1961 and not bySection 36(1)(va) read with Section2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act, 1961is sustainable in law in view of thedecision of the Hon’ble Supreme Courtin the case of Checkmate Services PLtd Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax-I(Civil Appeal No.2833 of 2016 decidedon 12.10.2022)? (2) Whether in the facts andcircumstances of the case, the ITATwas justified in law in deleting additionof Rs. 1768800000/- made fordepositing the employees’ contributionto Provident Fund beyond theprescribed time limit provided in therespective Acts?” 5.Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6.Learned counsel for the parties are at ad idem that due tonumber of pending appeals against the respondent havingoverlapping questions the substantial question No.2 was wronglyformulated. 7.In view of the above, the substantial question No.2 isreformulated:- “whether in the facts andcircumstances of the case the ITAT was justified in law in deletingdisallowance of Rs.176,88,00,000/-made on account of advance againstthe depreciation deferred withoutappreciating that same is headcreated as an internal arrangementand does not effect the nature ofreceipts as revenue received?” 8.The appeal is admitted on substantial question No.1formulated earlier and the substantial question No.2 asreformulated today. 9.With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties,after admission, the matter is taken up for hearing today itself asthe substantial questions involved have already been decided bythis Court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 329/2018 titled as“Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Jaipur -II, Jaipur Vs.Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Vidyut BhawanJanpath Marg Jaipur”. 10.For the reasons mentioned in the order dated 26.09.2024 passed by this Court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 329/2018, the substantial question No.1 is decided in favour ofthe appellant-Department and the substantial question No.2against the appellant-Department. 11.The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J 9.With the consent of learned counsel for both the parties,after admission, the matter is taken up for hearing today itself asthe substantial questions involved have already been decided bythis Court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 329/2018 titled as“Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Jaipur -II, Jaipur Vs.Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd., Vidyut BhawanJanpath Marg Jaipur”. 10.For the reasons mentioned in the order dated 26.09.2024 passed by this Court in D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 329/2018, the substantial question No.1 is decided in favour ofthe appellant-Department and the substantial question No.2against the appellant-Department. 11.The appeal is accordingly disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J AARZOO ARORA /Riya/137 S.