High Court Of Rajasthan
CIT vs. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.
Assessment Years : 2001-02, 2003-04 To 2006-07
Section : 43B, 36(1)(va),
Ajay Rastogi And J.K. Ranka, JJ.
IT Appeal Nos. 278, 280, 281 & 301 Of 2011
January  6, 2014
JUDGMENT
J.K. Ranka, J. – These income-tax appeals under s. 260A of the IT Act (for short ‘IT Act’) are directed against the orders dt. 30th Sept., 2008, 20th Aug.,. 2010, 30th Sept., 2008, 30th Sept., 2008 and 30th Sept., 2008 of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short ‘Tribunal’) arising, out of ITA No. 825/Jp/2008 for asst. yr. 2005-06, ITA No. 333/Jp/2010 asst. yr. 2006-07, ITA No. 826/Jp/2008 asst. yr. 2003-04, ITA No. 76/Jp/2008 asst. yr. 2001-02 and ITA No. 827/Jp/2008 asst. yr. 2004-05 respectively.
2. Since the controversy involved is identical, these income-tax appeals are being decided by this common order.
3. The brief facts as revealed from the record are that a claim was made by the respondent-assessee about payment of GPF, CPF and ESI and the said amount was claimed under s. 36(l)(va) r/w s. 43B of the IT Act. It is the claim of the Revenue that the said amount though paid by the assessee, but was not paid within the due date as given under the relevant Acts of GPF, CPF and ESI and, therefore, the said amount could not be allowed either under s. 36(1)(va) and even under s. 43B of the IT Act as it was not paid on or before the due date of the respective Acts.
4. It is the claim of the respondent-assessee that though the amount could not be paid on or before the due date under the respective Acts, but the same was deposited on or before the due date of furnishing of the IT returns under s. 139 of the IT Act and, therefore, in view of s. 43B r/w s. 36(1)(va) of the IT Act the entire amount was allowable.
5. Counsel for the Revenue submitted that the amount had to be deposited on or before the due date of the respective GPF Act, CPF Act and ESI Act and since the same was not paid on or before the due date of the respective Acts, therefore, it was not even allowable under the provisions of s. 36(1)(va) of the IT Act nor could be allowed under s. 43B of the IT Act.
6. We have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Revenue and have also gone through the impugned orders. In our view no substantial question of law arises out of the orders of the Tribunal as it is an admitted fact that the entire amount was deposited by the respondent-assessee at least on or before the due date of filing of the returns under s. 139 of the IT Act and being a concurrent finding of fact by the respective authorities and in the light of the judgments rendered by this Court in the case of CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur/ jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com 411 of even date wherein it has been held that if the amount has been deposited on or before the due date of filing the return under s. 139 and admittedlv it was deposited on or before the due date then the amount cannot be disallowed under s. 43B of the IT Act or under s. 36(1)(va) of the Act. In fact in the above matters one of the parties is same as in the present appeals, therefore, the issue is no more res Integra in the light of judgments of this Court referred to supra and, in our view, no substantial question of law arises out of the impugned orders of the Tribunal, which may require attention of this Court.
7. We find no merit in these appeals and the same are hereby dismissed in limine.
[Citation :Â 363 ITR 307]
