STEEL HOUSE,KOLKATA vs. DCIT,CIR-36,KOLKATA., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 755/KOL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 October 2023AY 2021-223 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 short delays in depositing PF/ESI during the COVID-19 pandemic and when the due date fell on a Sunday were beyond the assessee's control. Therefore, the additions made by the CPC were not sustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Steel House, appealed against an addition of Rs. 13,79,707/- made by the CPC for delayed payment of PF/ESI. The assessee argued that the delays were minor and unintentional, occurring due to reasons beyond their control, including the COVID-19 pandemic and Sundays falling on due dates.

What were the issues?

Whether minor delays in depositing PF/ESI, attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic and Sundays, warrant disallowance of the related expenses.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH KOLKATA

Before: Shri Sanjay Garg & Dr. Manish Borad

order : October 17, 2023 आदेश / ORDER संजय गग�, �या�यक सद�य �वारा / Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member: The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 30.06.2023 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [(hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

2.

The assessee in this appeal has contested the addition/adjustment made by the CPC in respect of an amount of Rs.13,79,707/- on account of delayed payment of PF/ESI.

3.

At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the small delay on account of deposit of PF/ESI in this case was not intentional but due to certain reasons beyond the control of the Assessment year: 2021-22 Steel House assessee. He, in this respect, has invited our attention to the chart produced on the file to submit that an amount of Rs.618668/- towards EPF for the month of April 2020 was deposited on 18.05.2020, whereas, the last date stipulated for deposit of EPF for the month of April, 2020 was on 15.05.2020. There was a delay of 3 days only. The ld. counsel has submitted that the aforesaid period was marred by Covid-19 pandemic and the small delay has occurred due to various reasons including closing of his office on certain dates due to Covid-19 pandemic. The ld. counsel has further invited our attention to the next entry of Rs.559928/- which pertains to the EPF for the month of October 2020 which was deposited on 16.11.2020, whereas, the last date for deposit of the EPF for the month of October was 15.11.2020. The ld. counsel, in this respect, has submitted that 15.11.2020 was Sunday and the amount was deposited on the next working day i.e. 16.11.2020. Moreover, the period was marred by Covid-19 pandemic. Similarly, ESI towards employees’ contribution for the month of April of Rs.102082/- was deposited on 18.05.2020 and another amount of Rs.98309/- towards ESI of employees’ contribution for the month of October 2020 was deposited on 16.11.2020. The ld. counsel has given the same reasoning on the aforesaid short delay as given in relation to delayed deposit of EPF. The ld. counsel, therefore, has submitted that the aforesaid short delay of 3 days in respect of ESI and PF for the month of April and delay of 1 day in respect of ESI & PF for the month of October was not intentional but due to reasons beyond the control of the assessee.

4.

The ld. DR, on the other hand, has relied upon the findings of the lower authorities.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →