M/S DAON AUTOPARTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHIPURAM vs. ITO, NFAC, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 177/CHNY/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 April 2023AY 2017-183 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer did not establish how the delay in payment amounted to under-reporting of income. Therefore, the penalty under Section 270A was not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee made delayed remittance of employees' EPF/ESI contributions. The Assessing Officer disallowed this amount as a deduction and initiated penalty proceedings under Section 270A.

What were the issues?

Whether a delay in remittance of employee contributions to EPF/ESI constitutes under-reporting of income for the purpose of levying penalty under Section 270A.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 36(1)(va),Section 270A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

Hearing: 28.03.2023Pronounced: 12.04.2023

O R D E R

PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (National Faceless Appeal Centre) [NFAC], Delhi dated 23.12.2022 relevant to the assessment year 2017-18 passed under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short].

2.

Facts are, in brief, that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer has noted that the assessee has made delay remittance of employees contribution of EPF/ESI to the tune of ₹.17,93,326/-. As per the provisions of section 36(1)(va) of the Act, in respect of any sum received by the assessee as contribution from his employees towards any welfare fund of such employees is allowed as deduction only if such sum is credited by the taxpayer to the employee’s account in the relevant fund on or before the due date. If the payments are not made within the due date there is contravention of the provisions of the Provident Fund Act and the defaulting assessee are not entitled to the benefits of deduction which are otherwise allowable to them under the scheme of the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer has disallowed an amount of ₹.17,93,326/- under section 36(1)(va) of the Act and added to the total income of the assessee.

3.

Subsequently, the Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceedings under section 270A of the Act on the ground that the assessee has under-reported its income and levied penalty of ₹.2,77,069/- under section 270A of the Act, which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).

4.

We have gone through the penalty order and appellate order. The Assessing Officer has not discussed anything about the under-report of the income. In this case, the claim of the assessee under section 36(1)(va) of the Act was denied on the ground that there is a delay in payment. How the delay in payment is amounting to under-report of income was not discussed by the Assessing Officer. Even, the ld. CIT(A) has simply confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer. Thus, we find that it is not a fit case to impose penalty under section 270A of the Act. Accordingly, the penalty levied under section 270A of the Act is deleted.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced on 12th April, 2023 at Chennai.

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 →