Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD ‘ SMC’ BENCH : Hyderabad
Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA
Date of Hearing : 24/03/2021 Date of Pronouncement : 20/04/2021 O R D E R This assessee’s appeals for A.Y. 2018-19 and 2019-20 arise against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3 “[CIT(A)]” Hyderabad’s order dated 11.09.2020 for A.Y. 2019-20 passed in case no.10088/2019-20 and order dated 14.09.2020 for A.Y. 2018-19 in case no. 10086/2020-21 in proceedings u/s 143(1) and s.154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short ‘the Act’]; respectively.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused. At the outset I observe that there is a delay of 06 days and 04 days respectively in filing of these appeals which stand condoned as per assessee’s averments in the condonation petitions dated 18.11.2020 and 20.11.2020 respectively. and 712/Hyd/2020 AY 2018-19 & 2019-20 M/s Sri Mahalaxmi Tex Prints Pvt. Ltd , Hyd.
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.
Both these appeals of the assessee are allowed.