PHOENIX POULTRY,JABALPUR,JABALPUR vs. ACIT, CIRCLE 1(1),JABALPUR, JABALPUR

O R D E R

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM:

1. The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi / CIT(A) passed u/s 143(1)and 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in upholding the action of the AO in making 9,03,280/-, unjustified, addition which of is quite unwarranted, excessive, arbitrary and bad-in- law.

Phoenix Poultry, Jabalpur. - 2 - 2.That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs.9,03,280/- made by the AO in the appellant's income, on account of delay deposition of Employees Contribution towards Provident Fund and ESIC by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, without considering the material fact that the appellant had made the entire payment before the due date prescribed under s. 139(1) of the Act for furnishing of return of income.

3.That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,03,280/- made by the AO in the appellant's income, on account of delay deposition of Employees Contribution towards Provident Fund and ESIC by invoking the provisions of section36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) the Income-Tax Act, of 1961, without considering the material fact that there was no default on part of the appellant in deposition of payment on time rather it was technical fault in PF portal which yielded in delay of mere one day.

4.That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in not considering and appreciating the material fact that the entire payment of the impugned sum made by the appellant was also eligible for deduction under s.37(1) of the Act if at all is not allowed under section 36(1) (va).

That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in not considering and appreciating the fact that addition made of Rs 9,03,280/- on account of the delay in employee PF and ESI payments are the disputed matters and cannot be dealt in order u/s 143(1).

That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in not considering and appreciating the fact that interest under section 234A and 234 B cannot be charged for retrospective operation of Hon'ble Supremem court ruling in the case of the Phoenix Poultry, Jabalpur. - 3 - CHECK MATE(SUPRA) as relied in the case of the CIT vs Hindustan Elector Graphics Ltd) The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of the 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of poultry. The assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2018-19 on 30.10.2018 disclosing a total income of Rs. 53,30,16,180/- and the return of income was processed with disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act of Rs. 9,03,280/- being employees contribution towards PF and ESI not paid within the due date of respective Act and the total income was determined at Rs,53,42,53,290/- U/sec 143(1) of the Act dated 9-08-2019.

3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal and the submissions of the assessee and has confirmed the action of the AO on the disallowance of employees contribution towards PF and ESI and granted relief in other grounds of appeal and partly allowed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal.

Phoenix Poultry, Jabalpur. - 4 -

4. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee overlooking the facts and material information that the assessee has made deposits/payments within the due date and the grace period allowed under the respective Acts and delay was due to non functioning of the e-portal of EPF. The Ld.AR substantiated the submissions with factual paper book and judicial decisions and prayed for allowing the appeal. Contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).

5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole matrix of the disputed issue is with respect to the disallowance of provident fund and ESIC made by the AO u/s 143(1) of the Act. The contentions of the Ld.AR that the assessee has deposited the employees contributions of PF & ESIC within the grace period allowed under respective acts and in some cases, were the due date of deposit of PF&ESIC falls on the public holiday and in such cases, the contribution was deposited on the next working day and also due to technical difficulties of E- Portal of EPF and theses details were overlooked by the lower authorities and prayed for one more opportunity of hearing before the lower authorities. We find the return of Phoenix Poultry, Jabalpur. - 5 - income was processed under 143(1) of the Act and we considering the facts, circumstances and the submissions and to meet the ends of justice, shall provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the claims before the assessing officer and therefore for limited purpose, we restore the disputed issues along with evidences to the file of the Assessing officer to examine and verify the claim and decide on the merits. And the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and the assessee should cooperate in submitting the information and we allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.

6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21.09.2023

Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Jabalpur Dated 21.09.2023

KRK, PS

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (A.Y: 2018-19) Phoenix Poultry, Vs. ACIT, Circle -1(1) 201, Ratan Colony, Jabalpur, Gorakhpur, Madhya Pradesh. Jabalpur- 482001. Madhya Pradesh. PAN/GIR No. : AAJFP5811H Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Dhiraj Ghai, CA Respondentby : Shri, Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR Date of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement 21.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM:

1. The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi / CIT(A) passed u/s 143(1)and 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in upholding the action of the AO in making 9,03,280/-, unjustified, addition which of is quite unwarranted, excessive, arbitrary and bad-in- law.

Phoenix Poultry, Jabalpur. - 2 - 2.That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs.9,03,280/- made by the AO in the appellant's income, on account of delay deposition of Employees Contribution towards Provident Fund and ESIC by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, without considering the material fact that the appellant had made the entire payment before the due date prescribed under s. 139(1) of the Act for furnishing of return of income.

3.That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,03,280/- made by the AO in the appellant's income, on account of delay deposition of Employees Contribution towards Provident Fund and ESIC by invoking the provisions of section36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) the Income-Tax Act, of 1961, without considering the material fact that there was no default on part of the appellant in deposition of payment on time rather it was technical fault in PF portal which yielded in delay of mere one day.

4.That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in not considering and appreciating the material fact that the entire payment of the impugned sum made by the appellant was also eligible for deduction under s.37(1) of the Act if at all is not allowed under section 36(1) (va).

That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in not considering and appreciating the fact that addition made of Rs 9,03,280/- on account of the delay in employee PF and ESI payments are the disputed matters and cannot be dealt in order u/s 143(1).

That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in not considering and appreciating the fact that interest under section 234A and 234 B cannot be charged for retrospective operation of Hon'ble Supremem court ruling in the case of the Phoenix Poultry, Jabalpur. - 3 - CHECK MATE(SUPRA) as relied in the case of the CIT vs Hindustan Elector Graphics Ltd) The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of the 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of poultry. The assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2018-19 on 30.10.2018 disclosing a total income of Rs. 53,30,16,180/- and the return of income was processed with disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act of Rs. 9,03,280/- being employees contribution towards PF and ESI not paid within the due date of respective Act and the total income was determined at Rs,53,42,53,290/- U/sec 143(1) of the Act dated 9-08-2019.

3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal and the submissions of the assessee and has confirmed the action of the AO on the disallowance of employees contribution towards PF and ESI and granted relief in other grounds of appeal and partly allowed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal.

Phoenix Poultry, Jabalpur. - 4 -

4. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee overlooking the facts and material information that the assessee has made deposits/payments within the due date and the grace period allowed under the respective Acts and delay was due to non functioning of the e-portal of EPF. The Ld.AR substantiated the submissions with factual paper book and judicial decisions and prayed for allowing the appeal. Contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).

5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole matrix of the disputed issue is with respect to the disallowance of provident fund and ESIC made by the AO u/s 143(1) of the Act. The contentions of the Ld.AR that the assessee has deposited the employees contributions of PF & ESIC within the grace period allowed under respective acts and in some cases, were the due date of deposit of PF&ESIC falls on the public holiday and in such cases, the contribution was deposited on the next working day and also due to technical difficulties of E- Portal of EPF and theses details were overlooked by the lower authorities and prayed for one more opportunity of hearing before the lower authorities. We find the return of Phoenix Poultry, Jabalpur. - 5 - income was processed under 143(1) of the Act and we considering the facts, circumstances and the submissions and to meet the ends of justice, shall provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the claims before the assessing officer and therefore for limited purpose, we restore the disputed issues along with evidences to the file of the Assessing officer to examine and verify the claim and decide on the merits. And the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and the assessee should cooperate in submitting the information and we allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.

6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21.09.2023

Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Jabalpur Dated 21.09.2023

KRK, PS

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (A.Y: 2018-19) Phoenix Poultry, Vs. ACIT, Circle -1(1) 201, Ratan Colony, Jabalpur, Gorakhpur, Madhya Pradesh. Jabalpur- 482001. Madhya Pradesh. PAN/GIR No. : AAJFP5811H Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Dhiraj Ghai, CA Respondentby : Shri, Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR Date of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement 21.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM:

1. The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi / CIT(A) passed u/s 143(1)and 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in upholding the action of the AO in making 9,03,280/-, unjustified, addition which of is quite unwarranted, excessive, arbitrary and bad-in- law.

Phoenix Poultry, Jabalpur. - 2 - 2.That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs.9,03,280/- made by the AO in the appellant's income, on account of delay deposition of Employees Contribution towards Provident Fund and ESIC by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, without considering the material fact that the appellant had made the entire payment before the due date prescribed under s. 139(1) of the Act for furnishing of return of income.

3.That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,03,280/- made by the AO in the appellant's income, on account of delay deposition of Employees Contribution towards Provident Fund and ESIC by invoking the provisions of section36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) the Income-Tax Act, of 1961, without considering the material fact that there was no default on part of the appellant in deposition of payment on time rather it was technical fault in PF portal which yielded in delay of mere one day.

4.That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in not considering and appreciating the material fact that the entire payment of the impugned sum made by the appellant was also eligible for deduction under s.37(1) of the Act if at all is not allowed under section 36(1) (va).

That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in not considering and appreciating the fact that addition made of Rs 9,03,280/- on account of the delay in employee PF and ESI payments are the disputed matters and cannot be dealt in order u/s 143(1).

That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in not considering and appreciating the fact that interest under section 234A and 234 B cannot be charged for retrospective operation of Hon'ble Supremem court ruling in the case of the Phoenix Poultry, Jabalpur. - 3 - CHECK MATE(SUPRA) as relied in the case of the CIT vs Hindustan Elector Graphics Ltd) The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of the 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of poultry. The assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2018-19 on 30.10.2018 disclosing a total income of Rs. 53,30,16,180/- and the return of income was processed with disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act of Rs. 9,03,280/- being employees contribution towards PF and ESI not paid within the due date of respective Act and the total income was determined at Rs,53,42,53,290/- U/sec 143(1) of the Act dated 9-08-2019.

3. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal and the submissions of the assessee and has confirmed the action of the AO on the disallowance of employees contribution towards PF and ESI and granted relief in other grounds of appeal and partly allowed the assessee appeal. Aggrieved by the CIT(A)order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal.

Phoenix Poultry, Jabalpur. - 4 -

4. At the time of hearing the Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee overlooking the facts and material information that the assessee has made deposits/payments within the due date and the grace period allowed under the respective Acts and delay was due to non functioning of the e-portal of EPF. The Ld.AR substantiated the submissions with factual paper book and judicial decisions and prayed for allowing the appeal. Contra, the Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A).

5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The sole matrix of the disputed issue is with respect to the disallowance of provident fund and ESIC made by the AO u/s 143(1) of the Act. The contentions of the Ld.AR that the assessee has deposited the employees contributions of PF & ESIC within the grace period allowed under respective acts and in some cases, were the due date of deposit of PF&ESIC falls on the public holiday and in such cases, the contribution was deposited on the next working day and also due to technical difficulties of E- Portal of EPF and theses details were overlooked by the lower authorities and prayed for one more opportunity of hearing before the lower authorities. We find the return of Phoenix Poultry, Jabalpur. - 5 - income was processed under 143(1) of the Act and we considering the facts, circumstances and the submissions and to meet the ends of justice, shall provide one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the claims before the assessing officer and therefore for limited purpose, we restore the disputed issues along with evidences to the file of the Assessing officer to examine and verify the claim and decide on the merits. And the assessee should be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and the assessee should cooperate in submitting the information and we allow the grounds of appeal of the assessee for statistical purposes.

6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21.09.2023

Sd/- Sd/- (OM PRAKASH KANT) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Jabalpur Dated 21.09.2023

KRK, PS

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “DB” BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (A.Y: 2018-19) Phoenix Poultry, Vs. ACIT, Circle -1(1) 201, Ratan Colony, Jabalpur, Gorakhpur, Madhya Pradesh. Jabalpur- 482001. Madhya Pradesh. PAN/GIR No. : AAJFP5811H Appellant .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri Dhiraj Ghai, CA Respondentby : Shri, Shiv Kumar. Sr.DR Date of Hearing 20.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement 21.09.2023 आदेश / O R D E R

PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM:

1. That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in upholding the action of the AO in making 9,03,280/-, unjustified, addition which of is quite unwarranted, excessive, arbitrary and bad-in- law.

Phoenix Poultry, Jabalpur. - 2 - 2.That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs.9,03,280/- made by the AO in the appellant's income, on account of delay deposition of Employees Contribution towards Provident Fund and ESIC by invoking the provisions of section 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, without considering the material fact that the appellant had made the entire payment before the due date prescribed under s. 139(1) of the Act for furnishing of return of income.

3.That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs. 9,03,280/- made by the AO in the appellant's income, on account of delay deposition of Employees Contribution towards Provident Fund and ESIC by invoking the provisions of section36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) the Income-Tax Act, of 1961, without considering the material fact that there was no default on part of the appellant in deposition of payment on time rather it was technical fault in PF portal which yielded in delay of mere one day.

4.That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in not considering and appreciating the material fact that the entire payment of the impugned sum made by the appellant was also eligible for deduction under s.37(1) of the Act if at all is not allowed under section 36(1) (va).

That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in not considering and appreciating the fact that addition made of Rs 9,03,280/- on account of the delay in employee PF and ESI payments are the disputed matters and cannot be dealt in order u/s 143(1).

That, the learned CIT(A) grossly erred, both on facts and in law, in not considering and appreciating the fact that interest under section 234A and 234 B cannot be charged for retrospective operation of Hon'ble Supremem court ruling in the case of the Phoenix Poultry, Jabalpur. - 3 - CHECK MATE(SUPRA) as relied in the case of the CIT vs Hindustan Elector Graphics Ltd) The appellant craves leave to add or amend any ground of the 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a partnership firm engaged in the business of poultry. The assessee has filed the return of income for the A.Y 2018-19 on 30.10.2018 disclosing a total income of Rs. 53,30,16,180/- and the return of income was processed with disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act of Rs. 9,03,280/- being employees contribution towards PF and ESI not paid within the due date of respective Act and the total income was determined at Rs,53,42,53,290/- U/sec 143(1) of the Act dated 9-08-2019.

Phoenix Poultry, Jabalpur. - 4 -

Order pronounced in the open court on 21.09.2023