The Issue Stands Concluded On Account Of A Judgment Delivered By This Court In The Case Of Commissioner Of Income-Tax And Another v. Not Arise From The Impugned Order Relating To The Present Case, And Therefore, The Issue Is Left Open

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30 DAY OF JUNE, 2021 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NATARAJ RANGASWAMY BETWEEN: I.T.A. NO.69 OF 2021 1. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-7 BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANAGLA, BENGALURU. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU. CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BMTC COMPLEX, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU. (BY SRI. SANMATHI E.I., ADVOCATE) …APPELLANTS AND: M/S TECHNOTREE CONVERGENCE LTD., 394-PHASE-IV, UDYOG VIHAR, GURGAON-122001. PAN NO.AAACL 7345L (SRI. K.R.VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE) …RESPONDENT THIS APPEAL IS FILED UNDER 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED: 03.07.2019 PASSED IN ITA NO.1448/B/2017, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-2012 AND ETC. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT I.A. No.1/2021 is filed for condonation of delay. 2.It has been argued by Sri Sanmathi E.I. that for the purpose of filing the appeal necessary permission has been obtained from the Head Office, and therefore, the delay has taken place. 3.After hearing learned counsel for the parties, delay stands condoned. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law : i. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in setting aside the disallowance towards employees contribution paid to provident fund beyond the due date which is against the provision of section 36(1)(va) read with section 43B of the Act and 2(24) of the Act"? ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the nature of commission payments are not in dispute when the assessing authority has clearly disputed the same and made disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act since all the conditions set out in said provision was fulfilled?" 4.The issue stands concluded on account of a judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax and Another v. SABARI Enterprises’ reported in (2008) 298 ITR 141 (Kar) which is again followed by this Court in the case of The Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore v. M/s. Spectrum Consultants India Private Limited in W.A. No.4077/2013 decided on 09.12.2013. In the aforesaid cases it has been held that the employer shall get deduction for payment of Employees' Contribution to Provident Fund, provided they are deposited before the due date for filing the return of income under Section 139(1) of the Act, and therefore, the question number one is answered in favour of assessee and against the revenue. So far as the second question of law is concerned, it does not arise from the impugned order relating to the present case, and therefore, the issue is left open. 5.The counsel for the Income Tax Department shall be free to argue in respect of the second question of law in other connected matters i.e., in I.T.A. Nos.157, 216 and 62 of 2021. The appeal stands dismissed, as aforesaid. Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE hnm