PRIME COMFORT PRODUCTS (P) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CPC, BENGALURU
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
Before: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:
This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2018-19, arises against the NFAC’s
Delhi
DIN
&
Order
No.
ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1035808840(1) dated
22.09.2021, in proceedings u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short
“the Act”).
2. Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.
3. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds:-
1. That under the facts and circumstances Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on merits in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal.
2
2. That under the facts and circumstances the AO at CPC erred in law and on merits in making addition /
adjustment of Rs. 12,88,983/- for the PF and ESIC contribution of the employees, deposited beyond the due date as per PF and ESIC Act but within the time allowed to file the ITR u/s. 139(1), more so as law laid down in PCIT vs. Pro Interactive Service India
Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 983/2018 dated 10.09.2018 (DHC) and CIT vs. Aimil Ltd. 321 ITR 508 (DHC) while processing the return u/s. 143(1).
2.1 That under the facts and circumstances, the disallowance u/s. 36(1) (va) of Rs. 12,88,983/- for PF and ESIC contribution of employees deposited beyond the due date as per PF and ESCI Act but within the time allowed to file the ITR is outside the scope of addition / adjustment while processing the ITR u/s.
143(1) of the Act. Apart from this, this issue, at the most, being highly debatable therefore outside the scope of adjustment u/s. 143(1).
3. That under the facts and circumstances, AO at CPC, erred in law as well as on merits in making addition of Rs.
16,56,509
u/s.
40(a)(ia)
(8,28,254
+
8,28,254), more so, Rs. 8,28,254/- already stands self-added in computation, hence, by making again addition of Rs. 16,56,509/-, the disallowance u/s.
40(a)(ia) for the same amount stands made 03 times, one time by the assessee suo moto and two times by CPC u/s. 143(1).
Both the learned representatives fairly inform that after the tribunal’s recall/ rectification order in the assessee’s misc. application MA No. 57/Del/2022, the sole substantive issue which survives before us pressed before us is only the above extracted 3rd ground challenging the lower authorities’ action invoking section 40(a)(ia) disallowance/addition of Rs. 16,56,509/- in question. 5. Faced with this situation, ld. counsel submits that the assessee hereby restricts its challenge to the above section 40(a)(ia) disallowance/addition to the extent that there is no double addition made in it’s hands, once it had already added it 3 in its computation. That being the case, we hereby restore the matter to the assessing authority to frame its consequential computation after ensuring that there is no double disallowance/additions made in the hands of the assessee, in above terms. Ordered accordingly. 6. In the result, this assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 28/07/2025. (Manish Agarwal) Judicial Member
Dated: 28/07/2025
SR BHATNAGGAR