Reveals That The Tribunal Has Merely Applied The Decision Of This Court In The Case Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, (2014) 366 Itr 170 (Guj.) Wherein The Very Issue Had Come Up For Consideration And It Was Held As Under

C/TAXAP/735/2019 ORDER IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 735 of 2019 ==========================================================MAX VIGIL SECURITY PVT. LTD. VersusDEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ========================================================== Appearance:DARSHAN R PATEL(8486) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANIandHONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SANGEETA K. VISHEN Date : 03/12/2019 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE HARSHA DEVANI) 1.By this appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), the appellant has challenged the order dated 18[th] February, 2019 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” Bench, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in ITA No.1300/AHD/2017 by proposing the following question stated to be substantial question of law: “Whether on facts and evidence on record, the Tribunal has seriously erred in law in interpreting provisions of section 36(1)(v)(a) read with section 2(24)(x) of the IncomeTaxAct,1961forconfirming addition/disallowance of Rs.1,77,66,589/- made by the Assessing Officer?” 2.The assessment year is 2014-2015 and the corresponding accounting period is the previous year 2013-2014. 3.Heard Mr. Darshan R. Patel, learned advocate for the appellant who has reiterated the grounds set out in the memorandum of appeal. 4.A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal reveals that the Tribunal has merely applied the decision of this court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation, (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) wherein the very issue had come up for consideration and it was held as under:- “8. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, and considering section 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with sub-clause (x) of clause 24 of section 2, it is held that with respect to the sum received by the assessee from any of his employees to which provisions of sub-clause (x) of clause (24) of section (2) applies, the assessee shall be entitled to deduction in computing the income referred to in section 28 with respect to such sum credited by the assessee to the employees account in the relevant fund or funds on or before the due date mentioned in explanation to section 36(1)(va). Consequently, it is held that the learned tribunal has erred in deleting respective disallowances being employees contribution to PF Account / ESI Account made by the AO as, as such, such sums were not credited by the respective assessee to the employees accounts in the relevant fund or funds (in the present case Provident Fund and/or ESI Fund on or before the due date as per the explanation to section 36(1)(va) of the Act i.e. date by which the concerned assessee was required as an employer to credit employees contribution to the employees account in the Provident Fund under the Provident Fund Act and/or in the ESI Fund under the ESI Act.” 5.Thus, the Tribunal has merely applied the decision of the jurisdictional High Court to the facts of the present case. Under the circumstances, no question of law can be said to arise out of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 6.The appeal therefore, fails and is accordingly summarily dismissed. (HARSHA DEVANI, J) (SANGEETA K. VISHEN,J)