SHLAKAS,DELHI vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX,CPC, BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1797/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2022AY 2019-203 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to verify the claim of brought forward business loss and allow it if crystallized in the prior year. The disallowance of Employees' Contribution towards PF and ESI was also directed to be allowed as the payments were made before the due date of filing the return.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed set off of brought forward business loss, which was not allowed during the processing of the return. The Commissioner (Appeals) also failed to decide this issue. Additionally, the Assessing Officer disallowed Employees' Contribution towards PF and ESI.

What were the issues?

Whether brought forward business loss can be set off, and whether Employees' Contribution to PF/ESI paid before the due date of filing the return is allowable as a deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(1),Section 139(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY

Hearing: 30.05.2022Pronounced: 30.05.2022

This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 09.04.2021 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for the assessment year 2019-20.

2.

In grounds no. 1 and 2, the assessee has raised the issue of not allowing benefit of brought forward business loss.

3.

Briefly the facts are, while processing the return of income filed by the assessee under section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC) did not allow set off of brought forward loss pertaining to earlier assessment years. While deciding assessee’s appeal, learned Commissioner (Appeal) also failed to decide the issue.

4. Be that as it may, before me, it is the contention of the assessee that the loss claimed by the assessee was crystallized in assessment year 2018-19 and while deciding assessee’s appeal pertaining to assessment year 2018-19, learned Commissioner (Appeals) has given a specific direction to the Assessing Officer to verify assessee’s claim and allow the benefit, as per law.

4.

Having considered rival submissions, I direct the Assessing Officer to verify assessee’s claim of set off of brought forward loss qua the facts available on record. In case, it is found that the loss claimed by the assessee was crystallized in assessment year 2018-19, the same has to be allowed to the assessee.

5.

The next issue which arises for consideration is disallowance of Employees’ Contribution towards Provident Fund (PF) and Employees’ State Insurance (ESI) aggregating to Rs.251,557/-.

The Assessing Officer disallowed assessee’s claim of deduction of the aforesaid amount on the reasoning that the payments were not made within the time period stipulated under the relevant Acts. However, it is not in dispute that the Employees’ 2 | P a g e Contribution to PF and ESI was paid before the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the deduction claimed by the assessee has to be allowed.

6.

While coming to such conclusion, reliance is placed on the decision of the Coordinate Bench in case of Raj Kumar and Ors.

Vs. ITD (CP), Bengaluru, in and Ors., dated 28.02.2022. Accordingly, ground nos. 3 and 4 are allowed.

7.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 30th May, 2022

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →