Ventura Textiles Corporation Industries Ltd., Mumbai v. The Dy. Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Officer, Range – 8 (3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1083 OF 2007 Ventura Textiles Corporation Industries Ltd., Mumbai..Appellant. Versus The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Officer, Range – 8 (3) ..Respondent. Mr.Sameer G. Dalal for the appellant.Mr.Vimal Gupta for the respondent. CORAM : Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud & J.P. Devadhar, JJ. DATE : 19[th] January, 2010. P.C. : 1.The appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law: A)Whether, on the facts and the circumstances of the case, and in law, the Tribunal was right in following the decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Synergy Financial Exchange Limited (2007) 288 ITR 366 as against the decisions of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Alembic Glass Industries Limited (2005) 279 ITR 331 and Guwahati High Court in the case of CIT V/s. George Williamson (Assam) Limited (2006) 284 ITR 619 which were in favour of the Appellant, in absence of any decision of the jurisdictional High Court on the issue ?the Tribunal was right in following the decision of Madras High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Synergy Financial Exchange Limited (2007) 288 ITR 366 as against the decisions of Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Alembic Glass Industries Limited (2005) 279 ITR 331 and Guwahati High Court in the case of CIT V/s. George Williamson (Assam) Limited (2006) 284 ITR 619 which were in favour of the Appellant, in absence of any decision of the jurisdictional High Court on the issue ? B)Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in law, the Tribunal was right in holding that the delay in making payments of employer’s contribution towards Provident Fund and ESIC beyond the due dates as provided under the respective statutes is not allowable u/s 43B of the Act, even though the amounts were deposited towards the respective funds before the due date of filing of return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act ?Tribunal was right in holding that the delay in making payments of employer’s contribution towards Provident Fund and ESIC beyond the due dates as provided under the respective statutes is not allowable u/s 43B of the Act, even though the amounts were deposited towards the respective funds before the due date of filing of return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act ? 2.Question B as framed above stands concluded in favour of the assessee by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. AlomExtrusions Limited (2009) 319 ITR 306, it would have to be answered accordingly. In view of the aforesaid situation, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee does not press Question A. 3.In the circumstances, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. (J.P. Devadhar, J.) (Dr.D.Y. Chandrachud, J.)