Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
TAXAP/1242/2010 3/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
TAX
APPEAL No. 1242 of 2010
=========================================================
COMMISSIONER
OF INCOME TAX-II - Appellant(s)
Versus
GUJARAT
STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION LTD - Opponent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MRS
MAUNA M BHATT for
Appellant(s) : 1,
None for Opponent(s) :
1,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE
MS JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI
Date
: 30/08/2011
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
Leave
to amend.
In
the amended form, Revenue has presented following questions for our
consideration :
“A Whether
the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in reversing the
order passed by CIT(A) and thereby deleting the addition of
Rs.3,86,412/- being warehousing charges?
B Whether
the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in reversing the
order passed by CIT(A) and thereby directing allowance of
Rs.17,45,186/- in respect of employee’s contribution to provident
funds in the year of payment?
C Whether
the Appellate Tribunal is right in law and on facts in reversing the
order passed by CIT(A) and thereby deleting the addition relating to
taxability of period period incomes?”
This
Tax Appeal is directed against judgement of the tribunal dated
17.7.2009.
With
respect to question (A), same pertains to warehousing charges of
Rs.3,86,412/- which the Assessing Officer added in the income of the
assessee on the ground that such income had accrued during the year
under consideration. Tribunal ultimately deleted such addition on the
ground that the right of receiving such income had not accrued. It
was noticed that though assessee had raised such demand, Circle Depo
from whom demand was made had resisted the demand and not admitted
the same, whereupon assessee had to file civil suit. This being facts
we do not find that the tribunal committed any error in reversing the
order of the revenue authorities in this respect.
With
respect to question (B) Counsel for the Revenue argued that assessee
had not deposited employee’s contribution towards provident fund
within the due date. In that view of the matter, considering the
provisions contained in Section 36(va) of the Act and in particular
explanation thereof, assessee was not entitled to claim deduction
towards such amount in year under consideration or even at any time
thereafter. The tribunal while upholding the Revenue’s contention
that the amount cannot be claimed by way of deduction since
admittedly same was not deposited within time prescribed,
nevertheless, directed that after due verification, the assessee
should be granted deduction in year in which payment is actually
made. Counsel submitted that the tribunal could not have given such
directions. We are of the opinion that this question is required to
be considered.
With
respect to question (C), we notice that tribunal has merely remanded
the issue for fresh consideration. Counsel for the Revenue however,
submitted that remand order is preceded by certain directions which
would come in way of Revenue. Since tribunal has remanded the
proceedings we are not entertaining this question, however, making it
clear that contentions of the Revenue with respect to validity of the
tribunal’s observations are kept open.
In
the result, Tax Appeal is admitted only for consideration of question
B.
(Akil
Kureshi,J.)
(Ms.
Sonia Gokani,J.)
(raghu)
Top