CONSULTING ENGINEERING SERVICES Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT .

(2.) THE following question of law has arisen for our consideration :

(3.) SINCE the counsel for the parties have agreed to dispense with filing of paper books and proceeded to argue the matter based on the existing records, we heard the matter finally. Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal") in ITA no. 76/Del/2006 in respect of the asst. yr. 1988 -99. he Tribunal by the impugned judgment has passed a common order not only pertaining to the asst. yr. 1998 -99 but also in respect of the asst. yrs. 1999 -2000 and 2001 -02 in view of the fact the issues involved were common. The only issue which has arisen in the appeal before us as is discetnable from the order of the authorities below is that whether the appellant/assessee is entitled to claim deduction, in respect of staff PF dues which have been paid after the due date prescribed under the relevant statute, but before the date of filing or return of income. However, in order to dispose of the appeal the following facts revive to be noted. per the provisions of s. 36(1)(va) of IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). 3.2 Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal to the Commissioner of Income -tax (Appeals) this issue. Consequently, the deduction claimed by the assessee was allowed. 3.3 Department being aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment reversed order of CIT(A) by relying up on the judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Synergy Financial Exchange Ltd. (2006) 205 CTR (Mad) 481 : (2007) 288 ITR 366 (Mad). In the said judgment the with retrospective effect. Applying the ratio of Madras High Court judgment, the Tribunal in the impugned judgment the CIT(A) could not be sustained. Aggrieved by the impugned judgment the assessee has preferred the present appeal.