MAHALAXMI TEX PRINTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(1), HYDERABAD

Coming to the sole issue raised in both these appeals in respect of ESI PF deduction of Rs. 3,41,038/- involving Rs. 3,32,933/- and Rs 8,105/- (for AY 2018-19), and Rs.4,10,154/- in respect of ESI PF deduction involving Rs.3,57,600/- and Rs.52,954/- (for AY 2019-20) respectively; not deposited within due date as contemplated under EPF and Misc. Provisions Act, 1952 and ESI Act, 1948; respectively, but before the due date of filing return u/s 139(1) of the Act, I notice that the learned lower authorities have invoked sec.154 jurisdiction. Learned departmental representative fails to dispute that hon’ble high courts have adopted varying opinions regarding correctness of the impugned claim. Take for instance the case law against the assessee i.e. CIT vs Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (2014) 366 ITR 170 (Guj.) and in favour of assessee CIT vs. AIMIL Ltd. 229 CTR 118 (2010) (Del) Bihar State Warehousing Corpn vs CIT 38 ITR 140 (Pat). It is thus clear that the impugned disallowance issue has been wrongly raised by the Assessing Officer in sec.154 proceedings on a debatable issue as per TS Balram vs. Volkart Brothers (1971) 82 ITR 50 (SC). I therefore accept assessee’s sole substantive ground for this reason alone and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the impugned additions for both these A.Ys 2018-19 and 2019-20 respectively.