Whether.ot]Thefactsandcircumstances Of The Case, The Tribunal Is v. Deputycommissioner Of Income Tax Reported In (2014) 366

IN THR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8[‘T]DAY OF MARCH 2017 PRESENT THR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THR HON’BLE MR.JUSTICK N K SUDHINDRARAO ITA NO.145/2013 BETWEEN: 1.COMMISSIONBR OF INCOMB TAX-III ~QUEENS ROADBANGALORE |QUEENS ROADBANGALORE | 2.ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXCIRCLE-12(1)BANGALORE |CIRCLE-12(1)BANGALORE | _ APPRHLLANTS (BY SRI.E I SANMATHI, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S MYSORE MINERALS LTD — NO.39, M G ROADBANGALORE-560 OO] .. RESPONDENT (BY SRI.A SHANKAR & M LAVA, ADVOCATES) THIS [TA IS FILED UNDER SKC.260-A OF LT.ACT,1961,ARISINGOUTOF|ORDERDATEHD02/11/2012 PASSED IN ITA NO.350/BANG/2011, FOR:THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-2006, PRAYS TO,FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW|STATED THERBIN AND SEI ASIDE THR COMMON|ORDER DATED 02/11/2012 PASSED BY THE ITAT, 'C'BENCH, BANGALORE IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ITA)NO.350/BANG/2011, AS SOUGHT FOR IN)THIS|APPEAL. THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR HEBARING THISDAY,JAYANT PATEL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT The appellant-revenue has preferred the presentappeal by raising the following substantial questions oflaw: anWhether.OT]the.factsandcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal’sorder can be said as perverse in nature as/Tribunal has relied upon decisions which arenot applicable to facts of present case? 2 |Whether.OT]thefactsandcircumstances of the case, the Tribunal is right in holding that disallowed payments inrespect of the employee’s contribution ofRs.13,49,849/- and Rs.14,943/- under the|provisions of Section 36(1)(va) read withsection 2(24)(x) of IT Act on account of delayin remittance of PF/ESI respectively is not inaccordance with law?” 2. We have heard Mr.Sanmathi, learned counselfor the appellant-revenue and Mr.A.Shankar, learnedcounsel for the respondent-assessee. 3. When the matter came up for consideration, thecounsel for appellant-revenue has brought to our noticethat after the filing of the present appeal, the question iscovered against the Revenue by the decision of thisCourt in case ofEssae Teraoka Pvt.Ltd., vs. Deputy|Commissioner of Income Tax reported in (2014) 366 ITR 408wherein it has been held that contribution.made towards PF and the delayed payments areavailable for deduction as the Revenue Expenditure. 4. Since the decision is a reported decision, wefind that the same need not be repeated so as not toburden the record. As such, in view of the abovereferreddecision, the questions would no more remain assubstantial questions of law but, even if it is to beanswered, in view of the above referred decision of this|Court, the question shall stand answered against theRevenue and in favour ot the assessee., o. The appeal shall stand disposed of accordingly. ok/- Sd/-| JUDGE| Sd/- JUDGE