BAZALONI GROUP LIMITED,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 1, DIBRUGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 28/GTY/2022Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati09 June 2023AY 2019-204 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's claim of errors in the Tax Audit Report regarding payment dates. The matter was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for verification of actual payment dates with challans.

What were the facts?

The assessee company made delayed deposits of employees' contribution to PF. The Tax Audit Report incorrectly reported the dates of actual payment, leading to a disallowance by the CPC. The CIT(A) confirmed the disallowance.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of delayed deposit of employees' PF contribution is justified when the actual deposit was made before the due date of filing the return of income, and if there were errors in reporting payment dates in the Tax Audit Report.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, GAUHATI BENCH

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL

For Appellant: Shri Harsh Vardhan Bhardwaj, FCA
For Respondent: Shri N. T. Sherpa, JCIT
Hearing: 06.06.2023Pronounced: 09.06.2023

O R D E R

PER GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1037721175(1) dated 12.12.2021 against the order of DCIT, CPC, Bangalore u/s. 154 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 23.03.2021 for AY 2019-20.

2.

Ground of appeal raised by assessee is reproduced as under:

1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC had erred both in law and on fact by confirming the order of the Assessing Officer on making an addition of rs.33,86,568/- being delayed deposit of employees contribution to P.F. u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 despite assessee contributing/depositing the same before the due date of filing of return of income u/s. 139(1) of the Act.

2 Bazaloni Group Limited, AY: 2019-20 3. Assessee is engaged in the business of cultivating, growing and manufacturing tea in its own tea estates and had filed its return of income on 30.10.2019, reporting business income of Rs.1,01,66,540/-. Return of the assessee was processed by Centralised Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru wherein adjustment was made towards disallowance relating to delayed payment of employees’ contribution of Provident Fund amounting to Rs.33,86,568/- vide intimation u/s. 143(1) dated 23.03.2021. Aggrieved, assessee went in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who dismissed the same. Aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

4.

Before us, Ld. Counsel at the outset, submitted that there are mistakes in the dates which have been reported in the Tax Audit Report in Form 3CD as mentioned by the auditor which has led to the disallowance in respect of the employees’ contribution towards Provident Fund. According to Ld. Counsel, the dates mentioned are evidently verifiable from the challans for the deposit of the impugned contribution. He also submitted that wherever there is a delay found on verification, the same be disallowed in accordance with the provisions of law. He, thus prayed for setting aside the matter back to the file of the Ld. AO before whom all the challans will be furnished to demonstrate the mistake which has crept in by the Tax Auditor in From 3CD so that after verification of the payments date, Ld. AO may consider the amounts which ought to be allowed and wherever there is a delay, the same may be disallowed in accordance with the recent decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. CIT [2022] 143 taxmann.com 178 (SC). On this submission, Ld. Sr. DR did not raise any objection.

3 Bazaloni Group Limited, AY: 2019-20 5. We note from the facts on record that the disallowance has been made on the basis of Tax Audit Report in Form 3CD dated 28.09.2019 e-filed by the assessee on 01.10.2019 wherein in clause 20(b) of Form 3CD, the details of payment made towards employees’ contribution for PF are reported with due date and the date of actual payment, indicating thereby the delay, if any. These details are tabulated as under:

6.

In the above table, Ld. Counsel has claimed that there are mistakes in the reporting of actual payment date by the Tax Auditor and, therefore, needs verification. For this a prayer has been made for remitting the matter back to the file of Ld. AO. Considering the facts on record and the prayer made, we find it

4 Bazaloni Group Limited, AY: 2019-20 proper to accept the submission and remit the matter back to the file of Ld. AO for verification of actual payment dates with the challans for deposit of the impugned contribution respect of which disallowance has been made. Ld. AO may verify the same and consider the allowance in accordance with the provisions of law as well as taking into consideration the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chekmate Services Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Accordingly, ground taken by the assessee in this respect is allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 9th June, 2023.

More judgments on Section 36(1)(va)

All 6,054 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(1)(va) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →